Clinical Psychiatry News

An insurance industry lobbying campaign persuaded federal officials to allow insurers to charge physicians fees for the privilege of being paid electronically, even though it can cost more to mail paper checks, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica. 

The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.

But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.

According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.

The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.

Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.

When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.

“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
 

Predatory practices

It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.

In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”

So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An insurance industry lobbying campaign persuaded federal officials to allow insurers to charge physicians fees for the privilege of being paid electronically, even though it can cost more to mail paper checks, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica. 

The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.

But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.

According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.

The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.

Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.

When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.

“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
 

Predatory practices

It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.

In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”

So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An insurance industry lobbying campaign persuaded federal officials to allow insurers to charge physicians fees for the privilege of being paid electronically, even though it can cost more to mail paper checks, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica. 

The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.

But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.

According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.

The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.

Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.

When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.

“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
 

Predatory practices

It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.

In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”

So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite claims by their makers, blue light glasses probably don’t reduce eyestrain for people who spend a lot of time looking at computer screens or their phones, a new study says. The glasses probably don’t improve wearers’ sleep habits either, according to the study. 

Blue light glasses are usually marketed as being able to filter out the potentially harmful effects of blue light from screens, such as eyestrain, dry eye, and sleep problems. Interest in blue light glasses increased during the COVID-19 pandemic as more people stayed home and looked at their computers and phones. They’re often prescribed by optometrists.

The study, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, looked at data collected from 17 clinical trials in six countries that recruited 619 people. 

“We found there may be no short-term advantages with using blue light–filtering spectacle lenses to reduce visual fatigue associated with computer use, compared to non–blue-light–filtering lenses,” senior author Laura Downie, PhD, an associate professor of optometry and vision sciences at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement.

“It is also currently unclear whether these lenses affect vision quality or sleep-related outcomes, and no conclusions could be drawn about any potential effects on retinal health in the longer term. People should be aware of these findings when deciding whether to purchase these spectacles.”

Researchers noted that one reason the glasses don’t help is that the amount of blue light received from computer screens and other artificial sources is only about a thousandth of what people get from natural daylight. On top of that, blue light lenses usually filter out only about 10%-25% of blue light.

“Our findings do not support the prescription of blue light–filtering lenses to the general population,” Dr. Downie said. 

Eye experts say people can cut down on eyestrain by simply cutting down on the amount of time they look at screens, or by taking regular breaks. To improve sleep, stop looking at screens for a few hours before bedtime.

The researchers noted limitations in their analysis. None of the studies investigated contrast sensitivity, color discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels, or overall patient visual satisfaction.

Also, the length of the different studies varied. More studies of the use of blue light–filtering glasses is needed, the researchers said.

The study received funding from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, the Public Health Agency in the United Kingdom, and Queen’s University Belfast. Two coauthors reported receiving payment from the College of Optometrists.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Despite claims by their makers, blue light glasses probably don’t reduce eyestrain for people who spend a lot of time looking at computer screens or their phones, a new study says. The glasses probably don’t improve wearers’ sleep habits either, according to the study. 

Blue light glasses are usually marketed as being able to filter out the potentially harmful effects of blue light from screens, such as eyestrain, dry eye, and sleep problems. Interest in blue light glasses increased during the COVID-19 pandemic as more people stayed home and looked at their computers and phones. They’re often prescribed by optometrists.

The study, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, looked at data collected from 17 clinical trials in six countries that recruited 619 people. 

“We found there may be no short-term advantages with using blue light–filtering spectacle lenses to reduce visual fatigue associated with computer use, compared to non–blue-light–filtering lenses,” senior author Laura Downie, PhD, an associate professor of optometry and vision sciences at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement.

“It is also currently unclear whether these lenses affect vision quality or sleep-related outcomes, and no conclusions could be drawn about any potential effects on retinal health in the longer term. People should be aware of these findings when deciding whether to purchase these spectacles.”

Researchers noted that one reason the glasses don’t help is that the amount of blue light received from computer screens and other artificial sources is only about a thousandth of what people get from natural daylight. On top of that, blue light lenses usually filter out only about 10%-25% of blue light.

“Our findings do not support the prescription of blue light–filtering lenses to the general population,” Dr. Downie said. 

Eye experts say people can cut down on eyestrain by simply cutting down on the amount of time they look at screens, or by taking regular breaks. To improve sleep, stop looking at screens for a few hours before bedtime.

The researchers noted limitations in their analysis. None of the studies investigated contrast sensitivity, color discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels, or overall patient visual satisfaction.

Also, the length of the different studies varied. More studies of the use of blue light–filtering glasses is needed, the researchers said.

The study received funding from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, the Public Health Agency in the United Kingdom, and Queen’s University Belfast. Two coauthors reported receiving payment from the College of Optometrists.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Despite claims by their makers, blue light glasses probably don’t reduce eyestrain for people who spend a lot of time looking at computer screens or their phones, a new study says. The glasses probably don’t improve wearers’ sleep habits either, according to the study. 

Blue light glasses are usually marketed as being able to filter out the potentially harmful effects of blue light from screens, such as eyestrain, dry eye, and sleep problems. Interest in blue light glasses increased during the COVID-19 pandemic as more people stayed home and looked at their computers and phones. They’re often prescribed by optometrists.

The study, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, looked at data collected from 17 clinical trials in six countries that recruited 619 people. 

“We found there may be no short-term advantages with using blue light–filtering spectacle lenses to reduce visual fatigue associated with computer use, compared to non–blue-light–filtering lenses,” senior author Laura Downie, PhD, an associate professor of optometry and vision sciences at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement.

“It is also currently unclear whether these lenses affect vision quality or sleep-related outcomes, and no conclusions could be drawn about any potential effects on retinal health in the longer term. People should be aware of these findings when deciding whether to purchase these spectacles.”

Researchers noted that one reason the glasses don’t help is that the amount of blue light received from computer screens and other artificial sources is only about a thousandth of what people get from natural daylight. On top of that, blue light lenses usually filter out only about 10%-25% of blue light.

“Our findings do not support the prescription of blue light–filtering lenses to the general population,” Dr. Downie said. 

Eye experts say people can cut down on eyestrain by simply cutting down on the amount of time they look at screens, or by taking regular breaks. To improve sleep, stop looking at screens for a few hours before bedtime.

The researchers noted limitations in their analysis. None of the studies investigated contrast sensitivity, color discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels, or overall patient visual satisfaction.

Also, the length of the different studies varied. More studies of the use of blue light–filtering glasses is needed, the researchers said.

The study received funding from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, the Public Health Agency in the United Kingdom, and Queen’s University Belfast. Two coauthors reported receiving payment from the College of Optometrists.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

You’ve practiced medicine for years without issues, but now you are facing a medical malpractice case. No worries – you’ve had professional liability insurance all this time, so surely there’s nothing to be concerned about. Undoubtedly, your medical malpractice insurer will cover the costs of defending you. Or will they? One case casts questions on just this issue.

Professional liability insurance

According to the American Medical Association, almost one in three physicians (31%) have had a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against them at some point in their careers. These numbers only increase the longer a physician practices; almost half of doctors 55 and over have been sued, compared with less than 10% of physicians under 40.

And while the majority of cases are dropped or dismissed, and the small minority of cases that do go to trial are mostly won by the defense, the cost of defending these cases can be extremely high. Physicians have medical malpractice insurance to defray these costs.

Malpractice insurance generally covers the costs of attorney fees, court costs, arbitration, compensatory damages, and settlements related to patient injury or death. Insurance sometimes, but not always, pays for the costs of malpractice lawsuits arising out of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations.

But it is what the policies don’t pay for that should be of most interest to practitioners.
 

Exclusions to medical malpractice insurance

All professional liability insurance policies contain exclusions, and it is essential that you know what they are. While the exclusions may vary by policy, most malpractice insurance policies exclude claims stemming from:

• Reckless or intentional acts.
• Illegal/criminal activities, including theft.
• Misrepresentation, including dishonesty, fraudulent activity, falsification, and misrepresentation on forms.
• Practicing under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Altering patient or hospital records.
• Sexual misconduct.
• Cyber security issues, which typically require a separate cyber liability policy to protect against cyber attacks and data breaches affecting patient medical records.

It’s essential to know what your specific policy’s exclusions are, or you may be surprised to find that your malpractice liability insurance doesn’t cover you when you expected that it would. Such was the situation in a recently decided case.

Also essential is knowing what type of coverage your policy provides – claims-made or occurrence-based. Occurrence policies offer lifetime coverage for incidents that occurred during the policy period, no matter when the claim is made. Claims-made policies cover only incidents that occur and are reported within the policy’s time period (unless a “tail” policy is purchased to extend the reporting period).
 

The case

Dr. P was a neurologist specializing in pain management. He had a professional liability insurance policy with an insurance company. In 2012, Dr. P’s insurance agent saw a television news story about the physician being accused by the state medical board for overprescribing opioids, resulting in the deaths of 17 patients. The next day, the agent obtained copies of documents from the state medical board, including a summary suspension order and a notice of contemplated action.

The notice of contemplated action specified that Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care through injudicious prescribing, leading to approximately 17 patient deaths due to drug toxicity. Because the agent realized that lawsuits could be filed against Dr. P for the deaths, she sent the insurance company the paperwork from the medical board so the insurer would be aware of the potential claims.

However, when the insurer received the information, it did not investigate or seek more information as it was required to do. The insurer failed to get medical records, or specific patient names, and none of the 17 deaths were recorded in the insurance company’s claims system (a failure to follow company procedure). Instead, the insurance company decided to cancel Dr. P’s policy effective the following month.

The company sent Dr. P a cancellation letter advising him that his policy was being terminated due to “license suspension, nature of allegations, and practice profile,” and offered him a tail policy to purchase.

The insurance company did not advise Dr. P that he should ensure all potential claims were reported, including the 17 deaths, before his policy expired. The company also did not advise him that he had a claims-made policy and what that meant regarding future lawsuits that might be filed after his policy period expired.

A year later, Dr. P was sued in two wrongful death lawsuits by the families of two of the 17 opioid-related deaths. When he was served with the papers, he promptly notified the insurance company. The insurance company issued a denial letter, incorrectly asserting that the 17 drug-toxicity deaths that they were aware of did not qualify as claims under Dr. P’s policy.

After his insurance company failed to represent him, Dr. P divorced his wife of 35 years and filed for bankruptcy. The only creditors with claims were the two families who had sued him. The bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against the insurance company on behalf of Dr. P for the insurer’s failure to defend and indemnify Dr. P against the wrongful death lawsuits. In 2017, the bankruptcy trustee settled the two wrongful death cases by paying the families a certain amount of cash and assigning the insurance bad faith lawsuit to them.
 

Court and jury decide

In 2020, the case against the insurance company ended up in court. By 2022, the court had decided some of the issues and left some for the jury to determine.

The court found that the insurance company had breached its obligation to defend and indemnify Dr. P, committed unfair insurance claims practices, and committed bad faith in failing to defend the physician. The court limited the compensation to the amount of cash that had been paid to settle the two cases, and any fees and costs that Dr. P had incurred defending himself.

However, this still left the jury to decide whether the insurance company had committed bad faith in failing to indemnify (secure a person against legal liability for his/her actions) Dr. P, whether it had violated the state’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and whether punitive damages should be levied against the insurer.

The jury trial ended in a stunning $52 million verdict against the insurance company after less than 2 hours of deliberation. The jury found that the insurance company had acted in bad faith and willfully violated the Unfair Insurances Practices Act.

While the jury ultimately decided against the insurance company and sent it a strong message with a large verdict, Dr. P’s career was still over. He had stopped practicing medicine, was bankrupt, and his personal life was in shambles. The litigation had taken about a decade. Sometimes a win isn’t a victory.
 

Protecting yourself

The best way to protect yourself from a situation in which your insurer will not defend you is to really know and understand your insurance policy. Is it occurrence-based or claims-made insurance? What exactly does it cover? How are claims supposed to be made? Your professional liability insurance can be extremely important if you get sued, so it is equally important to choose it carefully and to really understand what is being covered.

Other ways to protect yourself:

• Know your agent. Your agent is key to explaining your policy as well as helping in the event that you need to make a claim. Dr. P’s agent saw a news story about him on television, which is why she submitted the information to the insurance company. Dr. P would have been far better off calling the agent directly when he was being investigated by the state medical board to explain the situation and seek advice.
• Be aware of exclusions to your policy. Many – such as criminal acts, reckless or intentional acts, or practicing under the influence – were mentioned earlier in this article. Some may be unexpected, so it is extremely important that you understand the specific exclusions to your particular policy.
• Be aware of your state law, and how changes might affect you. For example, in states that have outlawed or criminalized abortion, an insurance company would probably not have to represent a policy holder who was sued for malpractice involving an abortion. On the other hand, be aware that not treating a patient who needs life-saving care because you are afraid of running afoul of the law can also get you in trouble if the patient is harmed by not being treated. (For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is currently investigating two hospitals that failed to provide necessary stabilizing abortion care to a patient with an emergency medication condition resulting from a miscarriage.)
• Know how your policy defines ‘intentional’ acts (which are typically excluded from coverage). This is important. In some jurisdictions, the insured clinician has to merely intend to commit the acts in order for the claim to be excluded. In other jurisdictions, the insured doctor has to intend to cause the resulting damage. This can result in a very different outcome.
• The best thing doctors can do is to really understand what the policy covers and be prepared to make some noise if the company is not covering something that it should. Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you think your insurer is doing something wrong, and if the answers don’t satisfy you, consult an attorney.

The future

In the fall of 2022, at least partially in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision regarding abortion, one professional liability company (Physician’s Insurance) launched criminal defense reimbursement coverage for physicians and hospitals to pay for defense costs incurred in responding to criminal allegations arising directly from patient care.

The add-on Criminal Defense Reimbursement Endorsement was made available in Washington State in January 2023, and will be offered in other states pending regulatory approval. It reimburses defense costs up to $250,000 when criminal actions have arisen from direct patient care.

In a press release announcing the new coverage, Physician’s Insurance CEO Bill Cotter explained the company’s reasoning in providing it: “The already challenging environment for physicians and hospitals has been made even more difficult as they now navigate the legal ramifications of increased criminal medical negligence claims as seen in the case of the Nashville nurse at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the potential for criminal state claims arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the subsequent state criminalization of healthcare practices that have long been the professionally accepted standard of care.”

Expect to see more insurance companies offering new coverage options for physicians in the future as they recognize that physicians may be facing more than just medical malpractice lawsuits arising out of patient care.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

You’ve practiced medicine for years without issues, but now you are facing a medical malpractice case. No worries – you’ve had professional liability insurance all this time, so surely there’s nothing to be concerned about. Undoubtedly, your medical malpractice insurer will cover the costs of defending you. Or will they? One case casts questions on just this issue.

Professional liability insurance

According to the American Medical Association, almost one in three physicians (31%) have had a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against them at some point in their careers. These numbers only increase the longer a physician practices; almost half of doctors 55 and over have been sued, compared with less than 10% of physicians under 40.

And while the majority of cases are dropped or dismissed, and the small minority of cases that do go to trial are mostly won by the defense, the cost of defending these cases can be extremely high. Physicians have medical malpractice insurance to defray these costs.

Malpractice insurance generally covers the costs of attorney fees, court costs, arbitration, compensatory damages, and settlements related to patient injury or death. Insurance sometimes, but not always, pays for the costs of malpractice lawsuits arising out of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations.

But it is what the policies don’t pay for that should be of most interest to practitioners.
 

Exclusions to medical malpractice insurance

All professional liability insurance policies contain exclusions, and it is essential that you know what they are. While the exclusions may vary by policy, most malpractice insurance policies exclude claims stemming from:

• Reckless or intentional acts.
• Illegal/criminal activities, including theft.
• Misrepresentation, including dishonesty, fraudulent activity, falsification, and misrepresentation on forms.
• Practicing under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Altering patient or hospital records.
• Sexual misconduct.
• Cyber security issues, which typically require a separate cyber liability policy to protect against cyber attacks and data breaches affecting patient medical records.

It’s essential to know what your specific policy’s exclusions are, or you may be surprised to find that your malpractice liability insurance doesn’t cover you when you expected that it would. Such was the situation in a recently decided case.

Also essential is knowing what type of coverage your policy provides – claims-made or occurrence-based. Occurrence policies offer lifetime coverage for incidents that occurred during the policy period, no matter when the claim is made. Claims-made policies cover only incidents that occur and are reported within the policy’s time period (unless a “tail” policy is purchased to extend the reporting period).
 

The case

Dr. P was a neurologist specializing in pain management. He had a professional liability insurance policy with an insurance company. In 2012, Dr. P’s insurance agent saw a television news story about the physician being accused by the state medical board for overprescribing opioids, resulting in the deaths of 17 patients. The next day, the agent obtained copies of documents from the state medical board, including a summary suspension order and a notice of contemplated action.

The notice of contemplated action specified that Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care through injudicious prescribing, leading to approximately 17 patient deaths due to drug toxicity. Because the agent realized that lawsuits could be filed against Dr. P for the deaths, she sent the insurance company the paperwork from the medical board so the insurer would be aware of the potential claims.

However, when the insurer received the information, it did not investigate or seek more information as it was required to do. The insurer failed to get medical records, or specific patient names, and none of the 17 deaths were recorded in the insurance company’s claims system (a failure to follow company procedure). Instead, the insurance company decided to cancel Dr. P’s policy effective the following month.

The company sent Dr. P a cancellation letter advising him that his policy was being terminated due to “license suspension, nature of allegations, and practice profile,” and offered him a tail policy to purchase.

The insurance company did not advise Dr. P that he should ensure all potential claims were reported, including the 17 deaths, before his policy expired. The company also did not advise him that he had a claims-made policy and what that meant regarding future lawsuits that might be filed after his policy period expired.

A year later, Dr. P was sued in two wrongful death lawsuits by the families of two of the 17 opioid-related deaths. When he was served with the papers, he promptly notified the insurance company. The insurance company issued a denial letter, incorrectly asserting that the 17 drug-toxicity deaths that they were aware of did not qualify as claims under Dr. P’s policy.

After his insurance company failed to represent him, Dr. P divorced his wife of 35 years and filed for bankruptcy. The only creditors with claims were the two families who had sued him. The bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against the insurance company on behalf of Dr. P for the insurer’s failure to defend and indemnify Dr. P against the wrongful death lawsuits. In 2017, the bankruptcy trustee settled the two wrongful death cases by paying the families a certain amount of cash and assigning the insurance bad faith lawsuit to them.
 

Court and jury decide

In 2020, the case against the insurance company ended up in court. By 2022, the court had decided some of the issues and left some for the jury to determine.

The court found that the insurance company had breached its obligation to defend and indemnify Dr. P, committed unfair insurance claims practices, and committed bad faith in failing to defend the physician. The court limited the compensation to the amount of cash that had been paid to settle the two cases, and any fees and costs that Dr. P had incurred defending himself.

However, this still left the jury to decide whether the insurance company had committed bad faith in failing to indemnify (secure a person against legal liability for his/her actions) Dr. P, whether it had violated the state’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and whether punitive damages should be levied against the insurer.

The jury trial ended in a stunning $52 million verdict against the insurance company after less than 2 hours of deliberation. The jury found that the insurance company had acted in bad faith and willfully violated the Unfair Insurances Practices Act.

While the jury ultimately decided against the insurance company and sent it a strong message with a large verdict, Dr. P’s career was still over. He had stopped practicing medicine, was bankrupt, and his personal life was in shambles. The litigation had taken about a decade. Sometimes a win isn’t a victory.
 

Protecting yourself

The best way to protect yourself from a situation in which your insurer will not defend you is to really know and understand your insurance policy. Is it occurrence-based or claims-made insurance? What exactly does it cover? How are claims supposed to be made? Your professional liability insurance can be extremely important if you get sued, so it is equally important to choose it carefully and to really understand what is being covered.

Other ways to protect yourself:

• Know your agent. Your agent is key to explaining your policy as well as helping in the event that you need to make a claim. Dr. P’s agent saw a news story about him on television, which is why she submitted the information to the insurance company. Dr. P would have been far better off calling the agent directly when he was being investigated by the state medical board to explain the situation and seek advice.
• Be aware of exclusions to your policy. Many – such as criminal acts, reckless or intentional acts, or practicing under the influence – were mentioned earlier in this article. Some may be unexpected, so it is extremely important that you understand the specific exclusions to your particular policy.
• Be aware of your state law, and how changes might affect you. For example, in states that have outlawed or criminalized abortion, an insurance company would probably not have to represent a policy holder who was sued for malpractice involving an abortion. On the other hand, be aware that not treating a patient who needs life-saving care because you are afraid of running afoul of the law can also get you in trouble if the patient is harmed by not being treated. (For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is currently investigating two hospitals that failed to provide necessary stabilizing abortion care to a patient with an emergency medication condition resulting from a miscarriage.)
• Know how your policy defines ‘intentional’ acts (which are typically excluded from coverage). This is important. In some jurisdictions, the insured clinician has to merely intend to commit the acts in order for the claim to be excluded. In other jurisdictions, the insured doctor has to intend to cause the resulting damage. This can result in a very different outcome.
• The best thing doctors can do is to really understand what the policy covers and be prepared to make some noise if the company is not covering something that it should. Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you think your insurer is doing something wrong, and if the answers don’t satisfy you, consult an attorney.

The future

In the fall of 2022, at least partially in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision regarding abortion, one professional liability company (Physician’s Insurance) launched criminal defense reimbursement coverage for physicians and hospitals to pay for defense costs incurred in responding to criminal allegations arising directly from patient care.

The add-on Criminal Defense Reimbursement Endorsement was made available in Washington State in January 2023, and will be offered in other states pending regulatory approval. It reimburses defense costs up to $250,000 when criminal actions have arisen from direct patient care.

In a press release announcing the new coverage, Physician’s Insurance CEO Bill Cotter explained the company’s reasoning in providing it: “The already challenging environment for physicians and hospitals has been made even more difficult as they now navigate the legal ramifications of increased criminal medical negligence claims as seen in the case of the Nashville nurse at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the potential for criminal state claims arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the subsequent state criminalization of healthcare practices that have long been the professionally accepted standard of care.”

Expect to see more insurance companies offering new coverage options for physicians in the future as they recognize that physicians may be facing more than just medical malpractice lawsuits arising out of patient care.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

You’ve practiced medicine for years without issues, but now you are facing a medical malpractice case. No worries – you’ve had professional liability insurance all this time, so surely there’s nothing to be concerned about. Undoubtedly, your medical malpractice insurer will cover the costs of defending you. Or will they? One case casts questions on just this issue.

Professional liability insurance

According to the American Medical Association, almost one in three physicians (31%) have had a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against them at some point in their careers. These numbers only increase the longer a physician practices; almost half of doctors 55 and over have been sued, compared with less than 10% of physicians under 40.

And while the majority of cases are dropped or dismissed, and the small minority of cases that do go to trial are mostly won by the defense, the cost of defending these cases can be extremely high. Physicians have medical malpractice insurance to defray these costs.

Malpractice insurance generally covers the costs of attorney fees, court costs, arbitration, compensatory damages, and settlements related to patient injury or death. Insurance sometimes, but not always, pays for the costs of malpractice lawsuits arising out of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations.

But it is what the policies don’t pay for that should be of most interest to practitioners.
 

Exclusions to medical malpractice insurance

All professional liability insurance policies contain exclusions, and it is essential that you know what they are. While the exclusions may vary by policy, most malpractice insurance policies exclude claims stemming from:

• Reckless or intentional acts.
• Illegal/criminal activities, including theft.
• Misrepresentation, including dishonesty, fraudulent activity, falsification, and misrepresentation on forms.
• Practicing under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Altering patient or hospital records.
• Sexual misconduct.
• Cyber security issues, which typically require a separate cyber liability policy to protect against cyber attacks and data breaches affecting patient medical records.

It’s essential to know what your specific policy’s exclusions are, or you may be surprised to find that your malpractice liability insurance doesn’t cover you when you expected that it would. Such was the situation in a recently decided case.

Also essential is knowing what type of coverage your policy provides – claims-made or occurrence-based. Occurrence policies offer lifetime coverage for incidents that occurred during the policy period, no matter when the claim is made. Claims-made policies cover only incidents that occur and are reported within the policy’s time period (unless a “tail” policy is purchased to extend the reporting period).
 

The case

Dr. P was a neurologist specializing in pain management. He had a professional liability insurance policy with an insurance company. In 2012, Dr. P’s insurance agent saw a television news story about the physician being accused by the state medical board for overprescribing opioids, resulting in the deaths of 17 patients. The next day, the agent obtained copies of documents from the state medical board, including a summary suspension order and a notice of contemplated action.

The notice of contemplated action specified that Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care through injudicious prescribing, leading to approximately 17 patient deaths due to drug toxicity. Because the agent realized that lawsuits could be filed against Dr. P for the deaths, she sent the insurance company the paperwork from the medical board so the insurer would be aware of the potential claims.

However, when the insurer received the information, it did not investigate or seek more information as it was required to do. The insurer failed to get medical records, or specific patient names, and none of the 17 deaths were recorded in the insurance company’s claims system (a failure to follow company procedure). Instead, the insurance company decided to cancel Dr. P’s policy effective the following month.

The company sent Dr. P a cancellation letter advising him that his policy was being terminated due to “license suspension, nature of allegations, and practice profile,” and offered him a tail policy to purchase.

The insurance company did not advise Dr. P that he should ensure all potential claims were reported, including the 17 deaths, before his policy expired. The company also did not advise him that he had a claims-made policy and what that meant regarding future lawsuits that might be filed after his policy period expired.

A year later, Dr. P was sued in two wrongful death lawsuits by the families of two of the 17 opioid-related deaths. When he was served with the papers, he promptly notified the insurance company. The insurance company issued a denial letter, incorrectly asserting that the 17 drug-toxicity deaths that they were aware of did not qualify as claims under Dr. P’s policy.

After his insurance company failed to represent him, Dr. P divorced his wife of 35 years and filed for bankruptcy. The only creditors with claims were the two families who had sued him. The bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against the insurance company on behalf of Dr. P for the insurer’s failure to defend and indemnify Dr. P against the wrongful death lawsuits. In 2017, the bankruptcy trustee settled the two wrongful death cases by paying the families a certain amount of cash and assigning the insurance bad faith lawsuit to them.
 

Court and jury decide

In 2020, the case against the insurance company ended up in court. By 2022, the court had decided some of the issues and left some for the jury to determine.

The court found that the insurance company had breached its obligation to defend and indemnify Dr. P, committed unfair insurance claims practices, and committed bad faith in failing to defend the physician. The court limited the compensation to the amount of cash that had been paid to settle the two cases, and any fees and costs that Dr. P had incurred defending himself.

However, this still left the jury to decide whether the insurance company had committed bad faith in failing to indemnify (secure a person against legal liability for his/her actions) Dr. P, whether it had violated the state’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and whether punitive damages should be levied against the insurer.

The jury trial ended in a stunning $52 million verdict against the insurance company after less than 2 hours of deliberation. The jury found that the insurance company had acted in bad faith and willfully violated the Unfair Insurances Practices Act.

While the jury ultimately decided against the insurance company and sent it a strong message with a large verdict, Dr. P’s career was still over. He had stopped practicing medicine, was bankrupt, and his personal life was in shambles. The litigation had taken about a decade. Sometimes a win isn’t a victory.
 

Protecting yourself

The best way to protect yourself from a situation in which your insurer will not defend you is to really know and understand your insurance policy. Is it occurrence-based or claims-made insurance? What exactly does it cover? How are claims supposed to be made? Your professional liability insurance can be extremely important if you get sued, so it is equally important to choose it carefully and to really understand what is being covered.

Other ways to protect yourself:

• Know your agent. Your agent is key to explaining your policy as well as helping in the event that you need to make a claim. Dr. P’s agent saw a news story about him on television, which is why she submitted the information to the insurance company. Dr. P would have been far better off calling the agent directly when he was being investigated by the state medical board to explain the situation and seek advice.
• Be aware of exclusions to your policy. Many – such as criminal acts, reckless or intentional acts, or practicing under the influence – were mentioned earlier in this article. Some may be unexpected, so it is extremely important that you understand the specific exclusions to your particular policy.
• Be aware of your state law, and how changes might affect you. For example, in states that have outlawed or criminalized abortion, an insurance company would probably not have to represent a policy holder who was sued for malpractice involving an abortion. On the other hand, be aware that not treating a patient who needs life-saving care because you are afraid of running afoul of the law can also get you in trouble if the patient is harmed by not being treated. (For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is currently investigating two hospitals that failed to provide necessary stabilizing abortion care to a patient with an emergency medication condition resulting from a miscarriage.)
• Know how your policy defines ‘intentional’ acts (which are typically excluded from coverage). This is important. In some jurisdictions, the insured clinician has to merely intend to commit the acts in order for the claim to be excluded. In other jurisdictions, the insured doctor has to intend to cause the resulting damage. This can result in a very different outcome.
• The best thing doctors can do is to really understand what the policy covers and be prepared to make some noise if the company is not covering something that it should. Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you think your insurer is doing something wrong, and if the answers don’t satisfy you, consult an attorney.

The future

In the fall of 2022, at least partially in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision regarding abortion, one professional liability company (Physician’s Insurance) launched criminal defense reimbursement coverage for physicians and hospitals to pay for defense costs incurred in responding to criminal allegations arising directly from patient care.

The add-on Criminal Defense Reimbursement Endorsement was made available in Washington State in January 2023, and will be offered in other states pending regulatory approval. It reimburses defense costs up to $250,000 when criminal actions have arisen from direct patient care.

In a press release announcing the new coverage, Physician’s Insurance CEO Bill Cotter explained the company’s reasoning in providing it: “The already challenging environment for physicians and hospitals has been made even more difficult as they now navigate the legal ramifications of increased criminal medical negligence claims as seen in the case of the Nashville nurse at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the potential for criminal state claims arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the subsequent state criminalization of healthcare practices that have long been the professionally accepted standard of care.”

Expect to see more insurance companies offering new coverage options for physicians in the future as they recognize that physicians may be facing more than just medical malpractice lawsuits arising out of patient care.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Perinatal depression (PND) is the most common obstetric complication in the United States. Even when screening results are positive, mothers often do not receive further evaluation, and even when PND is diagnosed, mothers do not receive evidence-based treatments. PND has potential long-term adverse health complications for the mother, her partner, the infant, and the mother-infant dyad.

Courtesy Dr. Alison M. Heru

Meta-analytic estimates show that pregnant women suffer from PND at rates from 6.5% to 12.9% across pregnancy to 3-months post partum.¹ Women from low-income families and adolescent mothers are at highest risk, where rates are double and triple respectively.

Fathers also suffer from PND, with a prevalence rate from 2% to 25%, increasing to 50% when the mother experiences PND.

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a Policy Statement (January 2019) about the need to recognize and manage PND. They recommended that pediatric medical homes establish a system to implement the screening of mothers at the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-month well-child visits, to use community resources for the treatment and referral of the mother with depression, and to provide support for the maternal-child relationship.²

The American Academy of Pediatrics also recommends advocacy for workforce development for mental health professionals who care for young children and mother-infant dyads, and for promotion of evidence-based interventions focused on healthy attachment and parent-child relationships.
 

Family research

There is a bidirectional association between family relational stress and PND. Lack of family support is both a predictor and a consequence of perinatal depression. Frequent arguments, conflict because one or both partners did not want the pregnancy, division of labor, poor support following stressful life events, lack of partner availability, and low intimacy are associated with increased perinatal depressive symptoms.

Gender role stress is also included as a risk factor. For example, men may fear performance failure related to work and sex, and women may fear disruption in the couple relationship due to the introduction of a child.

When depressed and nondepressed women at 2 months post delivery were compared, the women with depressive symptoms perceived that their partners did not share similar interests, provided little companionship, expressed disinterest in infant care, did not provide a feeling of connection, did not encourage them to get assistance to cope with difficulties, and expressed disagreement in infant care.³

A high-quality intimate relationship is protective for many illnesses and PND is no exception.⁴

Assessment

Despite the availability of effective treatments, perinatal mental health utilization rates are strikingly low. There are limited providers and a general lack of awareness of the need for this care. The stigma for assessing and treating PND is high because the perception is that pregnancy is supposed to be a joyous time and with time, PND will pass.

The first step is a timely and accurate assessment of the mother, which should, if possible, include the father and other family support people. The preferred standard for women is the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), a checklist of 10 items (listed below) with a maximum score of 30, and any score over 10 warrants further assessment.⁵ This scale is used worldwide in obstetric clinics and has been used to identify PND in fathers.

• I have been able to laugh and see the funny side of things.
• I have looked forward with enjoyment to things.
• I have blamed myself unnecessarily when things went wrong.
• I have been anxious or worried for no good reason.
• I have felt scared or panicky for no good reason.
• Things have been getting to me.
• I have been so unhappy that I have had difficulty sleeping.
• I have felt sad or miserable.
• I have been so unhappy that I have been crying.
• The thought of harming myself has occurred to me.

A new ultrabrief tool with only four questions is the Brief Multidimensional Assessment Scale (BMAS), which measures the ability to get things done, emotional support in important relationships, quality of life, and sense of purpose in life. It demonstrates concurrent validity with other measures and discriminates between nonclinical participants and participants from most clinical contexts.⁶

For those interested in assessing family health, an easy-to-use assessment tool is the 12-item Family Assessment Device (FAD).⁷

Family therapy interventions

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the current evidence on the usefulness of family therapy interventions in the prevention and treatment of PND identified seven studies.

In these studies, there were statistically significant reductions in depressive symptoms at postintervention in intervention group mothers. Intervention intensity and level of family involvement moderated the impacts of intervention on maternal depression, and there was a trend in improved family functioning in intervention group couples.⁸

Evidence-based interventions are usually psychoeducational or cognitive-behavioral family therapy models where focused interventions target the following three areas:

• Communication skills related to expectations (including those that pertain to gender roles and the transition to parenthood) and emotional support.
• Conflict management.
• Problem-solving skills related to shared responsibility in infant care and household activities.

Intensive day program for mothers and babies

There is a growing awareness of the effectiveness of specialized mother-baby day hospital programs for women with psychiatric distress during the peripartum period.⁹

The Women & Infants’ Hospital (WIH) in Providence, R.I., established a mother-baby postpartum depression day program in 2000, adjacent to the obstetrical hospital, the ninth largest obstetrical service in the United States. The day program is integrated with the hospital’s obstetric medicine team and referrals are also accepted from the perinatal practices in the surrounding community. The treatment day includes group, individual, and milieu treatment, as well as consultation with psychiatrists, nutritionists, social workers, lactation specialists and others.

The primary theoretical model utilized by the program is interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), with essential elements of the program incorporating cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and experiential strategies (for instance, mindfulness, breathing, progressive muscle relaxation) to improve self-care and relaxation skills. Patient satisfaction surveys collected from 800 women, (54% identified as White) treated at the program between 2007 and 2012 found that women were highly satisfied with the treatment received, noting that the inclusion of the baby in their treatment is a highly valued aspect of care.

A similar program in Minnesota reported that 328 women who consented to participation in research had significant improvements (P < .001) in self-report scales assessing depression, anxiety, and maternal functioning, improving mental health and parenting functioning.¹⁰

Lastly, a recent study out of Brussels, on the benefit of a mother-baby day program analyzed patient data from 2015 and 2020. This clinical population of 92 patients (43% identifying as North African) was comparable to the population of the inpatient mother-baby units in terms of psychosocial fragility except that the parents entering the day program had less severe illnesses, more anxiety disorder, and less postpartum psychosis. In the day program, all the babies improved in terms of symptoms and relationships, except for those with significant developmental difficulties.

The dyadic relationship was measured using “levels of adaptation of the parent–child relationship” scale which has four general levels of adjustment, from well-adjusted to troubled or dangerous relationship. Unlike programs in the United States, this program takes children up to 2.5 years old and the assessment period is up to 8 weeks.¹¹

Prevention of mental illness is best achieved by reducing the known determinants of illness. For PND, the research is clear, so why not start at the earliest possible stage, when we know that change is possible? Pushing health care systems to change is not easy, but as the research accumulates and the positive results grow, our arguments become stronger.

Dr. Heru is a psychiatrist in Aurora, Colo. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Contact Dr. Heru at [email protected].

References

1. Gavin NI et al. Perinatal depression: a systematic review of prevalence and incidence. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;106(5 Pt 1):1071-83. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000183597.31630.db.

2. Rafferty J et al. Incorporating recognition and management of perinatal depression into pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2019 Jan;143(1):e20183260. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3260.

3. Cluxton-Keller F, Bruce ML. Clinical effectiveness of family therapeutic interventions in the prevention and treatment of perinatal depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018 Jun 14;13(6):e0198730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198730.

4. Kumar SA et al. Promoting resilience to depression among couples during pregnancy: The protective functions of intimate relationship satisfaction and self-compassion. Family Process. 2022 May;62(1):387-405. doi: 10.1111/famp.12788.

5. Cox JL et al. Detection of postnatal depression: Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1987 Jun;150:782-6. doi: 10.1192/bjp.150.6.782.

6. Keitner GI et al. The Brief Multidimensional Assessment Scale (BMAS): A broad measure of patient well-being. Am J Psychother. 2023 Feb 1;76(2):75-81. doi: 10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20220032.

7. Boterhoven de Haan KL et al. Reliability and validity of a short version of the general functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device. Fam Process. 2015 Mar;54(1):116-23. doi: 10.1111/famp.12113.

8. Cluxton-Keller F, Bruce ML. Clinical effectiveness of family therapeutic interventions in the prevention and treatment of perinatal depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018 Jun 14;13(6):e0198730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198730.

9. Battle CL, Howard MM. A mother-baby psychiatric day hospital: History, rationale, and why perinatal mental health is important for obstetric medicine. Obstet Med. 2014 Jun;7(2):66-70. doi: 10.1177/1753495X13514402.

10. Kim HG et al. Keeping Parent, Child, and Relationship in Mind: Clinical Effectiveness of a Trauma-informed, Multigenerational, Attachment-Based, Mother-Baby Partial Hospital Program in an Urban Safety Net Hospital. Matern Child Health J. 2021 Nov;25(11):1776-86. doi: 10.1007/s10995-021-03221-4.

11. Moureau A et al. A 5 years’ experience of a parent-baby day unit: impact on baby’s development. Front Psychiatry. 2023 June 15;14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1121894.

Perinatal depression (PND) is the most common obstetric complication in the United States. Even when screening results are positive, mothers often do not receive further evaluation, and even when PND is diagnosed, mothers do not receive evidence-based treatments. PND has potential long-term adverse health complications for the mother, her partner, the infant, and the mother-infant dyad.

Courtesy Dr. Alison M. Heru

Meta-analytic estimates show that pregnant women suffer from PND at rates from 6.5% to 12.9% across pregnancy to 3-months post partum.¹ Women from low-income families and adolescent mothers are at highest risk, where rates are double and triple respectively.

Fathers also suffer from PND, with a prevalence rate from 2% to 25%, increasing to 50% when the mother experiences PND.

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a Policy Statement (January 2019) about the need to recognize and manage PND. They recommended that pediatric medical homes establish a system to implement the screening of mothers at the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-month well-child visits, to use community resources for the treatment and referral of the mother with depression, and to provide support for the maternal-child relationship.²

The American Academy of Pediatrics also recommends advocacy for workforce development for mental health professionals who care for young children and mother-infant dyads, and for promotion of evidence-based interventions focused on healthy attachment and parent-child relationships.
 

Family research

There is a bidirectional association between family relational stress and PND. Lack of family support is both a predictor and a consequence of perinatal depression. Frequent arguments, conflict because one or both partners did not want the pregnancy, division of labor, poor support following stressful life events, lack of partner availability, and low intimacy are associated with increased perinatal depressive symptoms.

Gender role stress is also included as a risk factor. For example, men may fear performance failure related to work and sex, and women may fear disruption in the couple relationship due to the introduction of a child.

When depressed and nondepressed women at 2 months post delivery were compared, the women with depressive symptoms perceived that their partners did not share similar interests, provided little companionship, expressed disinterest in infant care, did not provide a feeling of connection, did not encourage them to get assistance to cope with difficulties, and expressed disagreement in infant care.³

A high-quality intimate relationship is protective for many illnesses and PND is no exception.⁴

Assessment

Despite the availability of effective treatments, perinatal mental health utilization rates are strikingly low. There are limited providers and a general lack of awareness of the need for this care. The stigma for assessing and treating PND is high because the perception is that pregnancy is supposed to be a joyous time and with time, PND will pass.

The first step is a timely and accurate assessment of the mother, which should, if possible, include the father and other family support people. The preferred standard for women is the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), a checklist of 10 items (listed below) with a maximum score of 30, and any score over 10 warrants further assessment.⁵ This scale is used worldwide in obstetric clinics and has been used to identify PND in fathers.

• I have been able to laugh and see the funny side of things.
• I have looked forward with enjoyment to things.
• I have blamed myself unnecessarily when things went wrong.
• I have been anxious or worried for no good reason.
• I have felt scared or panicky for no good reason.
• Things have been getting to me.
• I have been so unhappy that I have had difficulty sleeping.
• I have felt sad or miserable.
• I have been so unhappy that I have been crying.
• The thought of harming myself has occurred to me.

A new ultrabrief tool with only four questions is the Brief Multidimensional Assessment Scale (BMAS), which measures the ability to get things done, emotional support in important relationships, quality of life, and sense of purpose in life. It demonstrates concurrent validity with other measures and discriminates between nonclinical participants and participants from most clinical contexts.⁶

For those interested in assessing family health, an easy-to-use assessment tool is the 12-item Family Assessment Device (FAD).⁷

Family therapy interventions

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the current evidence on the usefulness of family therapy interventions in the prevention and treatment of PND identified seven studies.

In these studies, there were statistically significant reductions in depressive symptoms at postintervention in intervention group mothers. Intervention intensity and level of family involvement moderated the impacts of intervention on maternal depression, and there was a trend in improved family functioning in intervention group couples.⁸

Evidence-based interventions are usually psychoeducational or cognitive-behavioral family therapy models where focused interventions target the following three areas:

• Communication skills related to expectations (including those that pertain to gender roles and the transition to parenthood) and emotional support.
• Conflict management.
• Problem-solving skills related to shared responsibility in infant care and household activities.

Intensive day program for mothers and babies

There is a growing awareness of the effectiveness of specialized mother-baby day hospital programs for women with psychiatric distress during the peripartum period.⁹

The Women & Infants’ Hospital (WIH) in Providence, R.I., established a mother-baby postpartum depression day program in 2000, adjacent to the obstetrical hospital, the ninth largest obstetrical service in the United States. The day program is integrated with the hospital’s obstetric medicine team and referrals are also accepted from the perinatal practices in the surrounding community. The treatment day includes group, individual, and milieu treatment, as well as consultation with psychiatrists, nutritionists, social workers, lactation specialists and others.

The primary theoretical model utilized by the program is interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), with essential elements of the program incorporating cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and experiential strategies (for instance, mindfulness, breathing, progressive muscle relaxation) to improve self-care and relaxation skills. Patient satisfaction surveys collected from 800 women, (54% identified as White) treated at the program between 2007 and 2012 found that women were highly satisfied with the treatment received, noting that the inclusion of the baby in their treatment is a highly valued aspect of care.

A similar program in Minnesota reported that 328 women who consented to participation in research had significant improvements (P < .001) in self-report scales assessing depression, anxiety, and maternal functioning, improving mental health and parenting functioning.¹⁰

Lastly, a recent study out of Brussels, on the benefit of a mother-baby day program analyzed patient data from 2015 and 2020. This clinical population of 92 patients (43% identifying as North African) was comparable to the population of the inpatient mother-baby units in terms of psychosocial fragility except that the parents entering the day program had less severe illnesses, more anxiety disorder, and less postpartum psychosis. In the day program, all the babies improved in terms of symptoms and relationships, except for those with significant developmental difficulties.

The dyadic relationship was measured using “levels of adaptation of the parent–child relationship” scale which has four general levels of adjustment, from well-adjusted to troubled or dangerous relationship. Unlike programs in the United States, this program takes children up to 2.5 years old and the assessment period is up to 8 weeks.¹¹

Prevention of mental illness is best achieved by reducing the known determinants of illness. For PND, the research is clear, so why not start at the earliest possible stage, when we know that change is possible? Pushing health care systems to change is not easy, but as the research accumulates and the positive results grow, our arguments become stronger.

Dr. Heru is a psychiatrist in Aurora, Colo. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Contact Dr. Heru at [email protected].

References

1. Gavin NI et al. Perinatal depression: a systematic review of prevalence and incidence. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;106(5 Pt 1):1071-83. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000183597.31630.db.

2. Rafferty J et al. Incorporating recognition and management of perinatal depression into pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2019 Jan;143(1):e20183260. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3260.

3. Cluxton-Keller F, Bruce ML. Clinical effectiveness of family therapeutic interventions in the prevention and treatment of perinatal depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018 Jun 14;13(6):e0198730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198730.

4. Kumar SA et al. Promoting resilience to depression among couples during pregnancy: The protective functions of intimate relationship satisfaction and self-compassion. Family Process. 2022 May;62(1):387-405. doi: 10.1111/famp.12788.

5. Cox JL et al. Detection of postnatal depression: Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1987 Jun;150:782-6. doi: 10.1192/bjp.150.6.782.

6. Keitner GI et al. The Brief Multidimensional Assessment Scale (BMAS): A broad measure of patient well-being. Am J Psychother. 2023 Feb 1;76(2):75-81. doi: 10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20220032.

7. Boterhoven de Haan KL et al. Reliability and validity of a short version of the general functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device. Fam Process. 2015 Mar;54(1):116-23. doi: 10.1111/famp.12113.

8. Cluxton-Keller F, Bruce ML. Clinical effectiveness of family therapeutic interventions in the prevention and treatment of perinatal depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018 Jun 14;13(6):e0198730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198730.

9. Battle CL, Howard MM. A mother-baby psychiatric day hospital: History, rationale, and why perinatal mental health is important for obstetric medicine. Obstet Med. 2014 Jun;7(2):66-70. doi: 10.1177/1753495X13514402.

10. Kim HG et al. Keeping Parent, Child, and Relationship in Mind: Clinical Effectiveness of a Trauma-informed, Multigenerational, Attachment-Based, Mother-Baby Partial Hospital Program in an Urban Safety Net Hospital. Matern Child Health J. 2021 Nov;25(11):1776-86. doi: 10.1007/s10995-021-03221-4.

11. Moureau A et al. A 5 years’ experience of a parent-baby day unit: impact on baby’s development. Front Psychiatry. 2023 June 15;14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1121894.

Perinatal depression (PND) is the most common obstetric complication in the United States. Even when screening results are positive, mothers often do not receive further evaluation, and even when PND is diagnosed, mothers do not receive evidence-based treatments. PND has potential long-term adverse health complications for the mother, her partner, the infant, and the mother-infant dyad.

Courtesy Dr. Alison M. Heru

Meta-analytic estimates show that pregnant women suffer from PND at rates from 6.5% to 12.9% across pregnancy to 3-months post partum.¹ Women from low-income families and adolescent mothers are at highest risk, where rates are double and triple respectively.

Fathers also suffer from PND, with a prevalence rate from 2% to 25%, increasing to 50% when the mother experiences PND.

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a Policy Statement (January 2019) about the need to recognize and manage PND. They recommended that pediatric medical homes establish a system to implement the screening of mothers at the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-month well-child visits, to use community resources for the treatment and referral of the mother with depression, and to provide support for the maternal-child relationship.²

The American Academy of Pediatrics also recommends advocacy for workforce development for mental health professionals who care for young children and mother-infant dyads, and for promotion of evidence-based interventions focused on healthy attachment and parent-child relationships.
 

Family research

There is a bidirectional association between family relational stress and PND. Lack of family support is both a predictor and a consequence of perinatal depression. Frequent arguments, conflict because one or both partners did not want the pregnancy, division of labor, poor support following stressful life events, lack of partner availability, and low intimacy are associated with increased perinatal depressive symptoms.

Gender role stress is also included as a risk factor. For example, men may fear performance failure related to work and sex, and women may fear disruption in the couple relationship due to the introduction of a child.

When depressed and nondepressed women at 2 months post delivery were compared, the women with depressive symptoms perceived that their partners did not share similar interests, provided little companionship, expressed disinterest in infant care, did not provide a feeling of connection, did not encourage them to get assistance to cope with difficulties, and expressed disagreement in infant care.³

A high-quality intimate relationship is protective for many illnesses and PND is no exception.⁴

Assessment

Despite the availability of effective treatments, perinatal mental health utilization rates are strikingly low. There are limited providers and a general lack of awareness of the need for this care. The stigma for assessing and treating PND is high because the perception is that pregnancy is supposed to be a joyous time and with time, PND will pass.

The first step is a timely and accurate assessment of the mother, which should, if possible, include the father and other family support people. The preferred standard for women is the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), a checklist of 10 items (listed below) with a maximum score of 30, and any score over 10 warrants further assessment.⁵ This scale is used worldwide in obstetric clinics and has been used to identify PND in fathers.

• I have been able to laugh and see the funny side of things.
• I have looked forward with enjoyment to things.
• I have blamed myself unnecessarily when things went wrong.
• I have been anxious or worried for no good reason.
• I have felt scared or panicky for no good reason.
• Things have been getting to me.
• I have been so unhappy that I have had difficulty sleeping.
• I have felt sad or miserable.
• I have been so unhappy that I have been crying.
• The thought of harming myself has occurred to me.

A new ultrabrief tool with only four questions is the Brief Multidimensional Assessment Scale (BMAS), which measures the ability to get things done, emotional support in important relationships, quality of life, and sense of purpose in life. It demonstrates concurrent validity with other measures and discriminates between nonclinical participants and participants from most clinical contexts.⁶

For those interested in assessing family health, an easy-to-use assessment tool is the 12-item Family Assessment Device (FAD).⁷

Family therapy interventions

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the current evidence on the usefulness of family therapy interventions in the prevention and treatment of PND identified seven studies.

In these studies, there were statistically significant reductions in depressive symptoms at postintervention in intervention group mothers. Intervention intensity and level of family involvement moderated the impacts of intervention on maternal depression, and there was a trend in improved family functioning in intervention group couples.⁸

Evidence-based interventions are usually psychoeducational or cognitive-behavioral family therapy models where focused interventions target the following three areas:

• Communication skills related to expectations (including those that pertain to gender roles and the transition to parenthood) and emotional support.
• Conflict management.
• Problem-solving skills related to shared responsibility in infant care and household activities.

Intensive day program for mothers and babies

There is a growing awareness of the effectiveness of specialized mother-baby day hospital programs for women with psychiatric distress during the peripartum period.⁹

The Women & Infants’ Hospital (WIH) in Providence, R.I., established a mother-baby postpartum depression day program in 2000, adjacent to the obstetrical hospital, the ninth largest obstetrical service in the United States. The day program is integrated with the hospital’s obstetric medicine team and referrals are also accepted from the perinatal practices in the surrounding community. The treatment day includes group, individual, and milieu treatment, as well as consultation with psychiatrists, nutritionists, social workers, lactation specialists and others.

The primary theoretical model utilized by the program is interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), with essential elements of the program incorporating cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and experiential strategies (for instance, mindfulness, breathing, progressive muscle relaxation) to improve self-care and relaxation skills. Patient satisfaction surveys collected from 800 women, (54% identified as White) treated at the program between 2007 and 2012 found that women were highly satisfied with the treatment received, noting that the inclusion of the baby in their treatment is a highly valued aspect of care.

A similar program in Minnesota reported that 328 women who consented to participation in research had significant improvements (P < .001) in self-report scales assessing depression, anxiety, and maternal functioning, improving mental health and parenting functioning.¹⁰

Lastly, a recent study out of Brussels, on the benefit of a mother-baby day program analyzed patient data from 2015 and 2020. This clinical population of 92 patients (43% identifying as North African) was comparable to the population of the inpatient mother-baby units in terms of psychosocial fragility except that the parents entering the day program had less severe illnesses, more anxiety disorder, and less postpartum psychosis. In the day program, all the babies improved in terms of symptoms and relationships, except for those with significant developmental difficulties.

The dyadic relationship was measured using “levels of adaptation of the parent–child relationship” scale which has four general levels of adjustment, from well-adjusted to troubled or dangerous relationship. Unlike programs in the United States, this program takes children up to 2.5 years old and the assessment period is up to 8 weeks.¹¹

Prevention of mental illness is best achieved by reducing the known determinants of illness. For PND, the research is clear, so why not start at the earliest possible stage, when we know that change is possible? Pushing health care systems to change is not easy, but as the research accumulates and the positive results grow, our arguments become stronger.

Dr. Heru is a psychiatrist in Aurora, Colo. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Contact Dr. Heru at [email protected].

References

1. Gavin NI et al. Perinatal depression: a systematic review of prevalence and incidence. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;106(5 Pt 1):1071-83. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000183597.31630.db.

2. Rafferty J et al. Incorporating recognition and management of perinatal depression into pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2019 Jan;143(1):e20183260. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3260.

3. Cluxton-Keller F, Bruce ML. Clinical effectiveness of family therapeutic interventions in the prevention and treatment of perinatal depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018 Jun 14;13(6):e0198730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198730.

4. Kumar SA et al. Promoting resilience to depression among couples during pregnancy: The protective functions of intimate relationship satisfaction and self-compassion. Family Process. 2022 May;62(1):387-405. doi: 10.1111/famp.12788.

5. Cox JL et al. Detection of postnatal depression: Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1987 Jun;150:782-6. doi: 10.1192/bjp.150.6.782.

6. Keitner GI et al. The Brief Multidimensional Assessment Scale (BMAS): A broad measure of patient well-being. Am J Psychother. 2023 Feb 1;76(2):75-81. doi: 10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20220032.

7. Boterhoven de Haan KL et al. Reliability and validity of a short version of the general functioning subscale of the McMaster Family Assessment Device. Fam Process. 2015 Mar;54(1):116-23. doi: 10.1111/famp.12113.

8. Cluxton-Keller F, Bruce ML. Clinical effectiveness of family therapeutic interventions in the prevention and treatment of perinatal depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018 Jun 14;13(6):e0198730. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198730.

9. Battle CL, Howard MM. A mother-baby psychiatric day hospital: History, rationale, and why perinatal mental health is important for obstetric medicine. Obstet Med. 2014 Jun;7(2):66-70. doi: 10.1177/1753495X13514402.

10. Kim HG et al. Keeping Parent, Child, and Relationship in Mind: Clinical Effectiveness of a Trauma-informed, Multigenerational, Attachment-Based, Mother-Baby Partial Hospital Program in an Urban Safety Net Hospital. Matern Child Health J. 2021 Nov;25(11):1776-86. doi: 10.1007/s10995-021-03221-4.

11. Moureau A et al. A 5 years’ experience of a parent-baby day unit: impact on baby’s development. Front Psychiatry. 2023 June 15;14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1121894.

When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.

“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.

Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.

He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”

The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.

Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.

More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.

“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.

MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.

Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.

Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.

“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
 

Drawing the line at patient care

Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.

“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.

Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:

• Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
• Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
• Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.

Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.

They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
 

Is regulation needed?

Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.

“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.

In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.

Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.

In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.

There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
 

What should doctors do?

Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.

There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.

“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.

Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.

“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.

Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.

He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”

The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.

Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.

More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.

“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.

MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.

Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.

Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.

“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
 

Drawing the line at patient care

Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.

“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.

Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:

• Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
• Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
• Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.

Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.

They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
 

Is regulation needed?

Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.

“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.

In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.

Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.

In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.

There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
 

What should doctors do?

Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.

There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.

“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.

Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.

“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.

Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.

He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”

The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.

Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.

More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.

“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.

MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.

Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.

Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.

“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
 

Drawing the line at patient care

Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.

“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.

Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:

• Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
• Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
• Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.

Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.

They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
 

Is regulation needed?

Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.

“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.

In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.

Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.

In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.

There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
 

What should doctors do?

Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.

There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.

“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.

Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After her emergency medicine group was acquired by a staffing firm backed by a large private equity (PE) firm, Michelle Wiener, MD, said the workflow changes came swiftly.

“Our staffing has been greatly reduced,” the Detroit physician said. “At this point, we have no say in anything. We have no say in the scheduling. We aren’t allowed to see what is billed under our name. The morale has really gone down.”

Dr. Wiener, who practices at Ascension St. John Hospital, said she and fellow physicians have repeatedly brought their concerns to TeamHealth, which in 2015 took over St. John Emergency Services PC. TeamHealth is owned by PE giant Blackstone.

“It’s very frustrating,” Dr. Wiener said. “We’re taking it from all sides.”

Blackstone and Ascension St. John did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

TeamHealth would not respond directly to questions about the Ascension St. John Hospital physicians or their concerns.

Spokesman Josh Hopson provided only a general statement: “TeamHealth is committed to making sure that clinicians have the resources and support needed to provide first-class care to patients, particularly with regard to staffing and compensation. TeamHealth has and will always put patient care first, and that is not impacted by its ownership model.”

Acquisitions of medical practices and hospitals by PE firms are rapidly growing, with more than 1,400 PE deals in health care in 2021 totaling upwards of $208 billion, according to PitchBook Data Inc., a Seattle-based firm that tracks mergers and acquisitions.

Some physicians praise the partnerships as an opportunity to improve technology and efficiency, whereas others decry them as raising patient costs and lowering the quality of care. A recent UC Berkeley study found that PE ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties, most notably oncology and gastroenterology.
 

What should you expect after PE acquisition?

Since his practice partnered with a PE firm in 2020, Milwaukee-based otolaryngologist Madan Kandula, MD, said he has found the changes positive. The practice has grown and improved operations in finance, accounting, compliance, and information technology, said Dr. Kandula, founder and CEO of Advent, an ENT practice with 15 clinics in four Midwestern states.

Dr. Kandula said his group already had a sound business practice, and that the goal of partnering with a PE firm wasn’t to change day-to-day operations but to propel the organization forward.

“From patient load to visit time to how we staff our clinics, there has been no change,” he said. “My private equity firm does not, [and] cannot, impose their will on our clinical decisions.”

Experts say the impact of PE acquisitions on individual physicians often depends on where a doctor ranks in the organization, what stage they are in their career, and how much control they had over the deal.

“It’s the older physicians who are usually selling the practice and getting the big payout,” said Anjali Dooley, a St. Louis–based health law attorney who counsels physicians about PE deals. “The younger doctors are usually not part of the deal, as they may still be employees. They don’t have any negotiating power. Hopefully, there is some transparency, but sometimes there is not, and they are blindsided by the deal.”

When it comes to workload, most PE-owned groups are put on a production-based model, such as a wRVU-based model, said Roger Strode, a Chicago-based health law attorney who focuses on health care mergers and acquisitions. Most already operate under such a model, but there might be some changes after a buyout.

Staffing may also change, added Ms. Dooley. The PE firms may want to add partners or companies already in their portfolios to create efficiencies, causing training or workflow changes.

In a hospital buyout, changes may depend on whether a department is a significant revenue generator for the hospital, Ms. Dooley noted.

PE firms frequently favor higher revenue–generating specialties, such as neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and plastic surgery. They closely scrutinize departments said that make less money, such as the emergency department or primary care, Ms. Dooley said. Physicians or teams that don’t fit the firm’s cost-efficiency plans may be terminated or replaced.

On the other hand, Mr. Strode said physicians may see improved electronic health records and collections.

“Some of your overall overhead costs may be reduced, because they’re better at it,” Mr. Strode said. “When you’ve got more scale, the cost per patient, the cost per hour, the cost per procedure, goes down, and the cost that’s applied against your production will go down. As [practices grow], they have more bargaining power with payers and you can potentially get better rates. At least, that’s the promise.”

Analysts note that PE health care acquisitions show no signs of slowing and that it pays for physicians to know what to expect and how to cope if their practice or hospital is acquired. Whether physicians have some control over a buyout or are blindsided by the transition, it’s critical to know what to consider, how workloads might change, and your options for settling in or settling up.

The PE industry has about $2 trillion lined up for potential investments in 2023, said Ms. Dooley.

“PE firms are looking at health care to expend some of this dry powder,” Ms. Dooley continued. “If done correctly, PE firms that are aware of health care regulations, compliance, and patient care issues can ... remove redundant services and improve ... efficiencies, but the bad is when that doesn’t happen, and the quality of care goes down or there are patient safety risks.”
 

How to prepare for and cope with PE partnerships

If your practice is considering a PE partnership, it’s important to explore the terms and conditions and carefully weigh the pros and cons, said Gary Herschman, a Newark, N.J.–based attorney who advises PE-owned physician groups.

“My recommendation is that physicians at a minimum conduct due diligence on all potential strategic options for their groups, and then make an informed decision regarding whether a partnership transaction is right for their group, as it’s not right for every group,” he said.

When Texas cardiologist Rick Snyder, MD, was considering PE partnerships, he spoke with physicians who made similar deals to determine whether they were satisfied years later, he said. In April, Snyder’s practice, HeartPlace, the largest physician-owned cardiology practice in Texas, was acquired by US Heart & Vascular, a practice management platform backed by PE firm Ares Management.

“I called every group that I knew that had done private equity for any meaningful amount of time,” Dr. Snyder said. “For the first year or two, everybody is in the honeymoon period. If the model is going to succeed or break down, it’s not going to be in the first year or two. So I wanted to talk to groups that had done this for a longer amount of time and find out what their pitfalls were. What would they have done differently? Has it been a productive relationship? Did they grow?”

Dr. Snyder, president of the Texas Medical Association, said his practice met with seven or eight firms before choosing one that best met their needs. His group wanted a platform that preserved their clinical autonomy, governance, and culture, he said. They also wanted to ensure they were not entering into a “buy and flip” scenario, but rather a “buy and build” plan.

“Thus, financial capital was not sufficient, they also had to have intellectual capital and relationship capital on their bench,” he said. “When we found the partner that embraced all of these factors as well as a history of buying and long-term building, we pulled the trigger and partnered with Ares and US Heart & Vascular Management. The partner we chose did not offer us the most money. We put a premium on these other criteria.”

“I always tell docs, know the culture of your group and your vision,” he said. “Before you go down that route, ask yourself what you want to accomplish and if it makes sense having a private equity partner to accomplish that vision with.”

For younger physicians or those with little control over buyouts, experts recommend they review their contracts and consider consulting with an attorney to better understand how the deal may affect their earnings and career prospects.

Those who have a much longer career runway need to weigh whether they want to work for a PE-linked practice, Mr. Strode said. For some, it’s time to check when their noncompete agreements end and find a position elsewhere.

Also, physicians should know their rights and the laws in their states regarding the corporate practice of medicine. Statutes vary by state, and knowing the provisions in your state helps doctors recognize their legal rights, learn possible exceptions to the requirements, and know the penalties for violations.

In Michigan, a group of physicians and other health professionals at Ascension St. John has voted to unionize. Doctors hope that the union, which includes advanced practice clinicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, will help improve patient care and protect working conditions for staff, Dr. Wiener said.

She advises physicians who are unhappy after acquisitions to speak up and stick together.

“That’s the biggest thing I think physicians should start doing,” she said. “Support each other and stand up. You are stronger together.”
 

Why is PE so attracted to health care?

PE firms typically buy practices or hospitals, work to make the entities more profitable, and then sell them, with the goal of doubling or tripling their investment over a short period. In general, PE firms aim for annual returns exceeding 20% after 3-7 years.

These firms know that health care is relatively recession-proof, that providers have third-party payers, and that the industry is fragmented and requires more efficiency, Ms. Dooley said.

When PE practice acquisitions started gaining momentum about 12 years ago, traditional hospital-based specialties such as anesthesiology and radiology were prime targets, said Mr. Strode.

At the same time, increasing challenges in private practice, such as declining compensation from payers, pressure to participate in value-based care programs, and rising regional competitors have fueled more physician groups to partner with PE firms, Mr. Herschman noted.

Physicians who partner with PE firms often benefit by having new access to capital to grow their practices, cost savings through group purchasing, and the ability to compete with larger health groups, Mr. Herschman said.

Questions remain, however, about how PE involvement affects health care use and spending. An April 2023 JAMA Viewpoint article called out the lack of oversight and regulation in the health care/PE space, suggesting that a stronger framework for regulation and transparency is needed.

A 2022 study in JAMA Health Forum that examined changes in prices and utilization associated with the PE acquisitions of 578 dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology physician practices from 2016 to 2020 found that prices increased by an average of 11%, and volume rose by 16%, after acquisition.

“We found that acquisitions were associated with increases in health care spending and utilization, as well as some other patterns of care like potential upcoding,” said Jane M. Zhu, MD, an author of the study and assistant professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

Another recent study that Dr. Zhu coauthored, published in Health Affairs, found that physician practices acquired by PE firms experience greater staff turnover and rely more heavily on advanced practice professionals than doctors.

“To the extent that that turnover indicates physicians are dissatisfied after private equity comes in, that’s really important to investigate further,” Dr. Zhu said.

PE firms owned 4% of U.S. hospitals in 2021 and 11% of nursing homes, according to a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report. The report does not include 2021 data on medical practices but notes that from 2013 to 2016, PE firms acquired at least 2% of physician practices. Estimates of PE deals are probably lower than actual numbers because of the lack of comprehensive information sources, according to the MedPAC report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After her emergency medicine group was acquired by a staffing firm backed by a large private equity (PE) firm, Michelle Wiener, MD, said the workflow changes came swiftly.

“Our staffing has been greatly reduced,” the Detroit physician said. “At this point, we have no say in anything. We have no say in the scheduling. We aren’t allowed to see what is billed under our name. The morale has really gone down.”

Dr. Wiener, who practices at Ascension St. John Hospital, said she and fellow physicians have repeatedly brought their concerns to TeamHealth, which in 2015 took over St. John Emergency Services PC. TeamHealth is owned by PE giant Blackstone.

“It’s very frustrating,” Dr. Wiener said. “We’re taking it from all sides.”

Blackstone and Ascension St. John did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

TeamHealth would not respond directly to questions about the Ascension St. John Hospital physicians or their concerns.

Spokesman Josh Hopson provided only a general statement: “TeamHealth is committed to making sure that clinicians have the resources and support needed to provide first-class care to patients, particularly with regard to staffing and compensation. TeamHealth has and will always put patient care first, and that is not impacted by its ownership model.”

Acquisitions of medical practices and hospitals by PE firms are rapidly growing, with more than 1,400 PE deals in health care in 2021 totaling upwards of $208 billion, according to PitchBook Data Inc., a Seattle-based firm that tracks mergers and acquisitions.

Some physicians praise the partnerships as an opportunity to improve technology and efficiency, whereas others decry them as raising patient costs and lowering the quality of care. A recent UC Berkeley study found that PE ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties, most notably oncology and gastroenterology.
 

What should you expect after PE acquisition?

Since his practice partnered with a PE firm in 2020, Milwaukee-based otolaryngologist Madan Kandula, MD, said he has found the changes positive. The practice has grown and improved operations in finance, accounting, compliance, and information technology, said Dr. Kandula, founder and CEO of Advent, an ENT practice with 15 clinics in four Midwestern states.

Dr. Kandula said his group already had a sound business practice, and that the goal of partnering with a PE firm wasn’t to change day-to-day operations but to propel the organization forward.

“From patient load to visit time to how we staff our clinics, there has been no change,” he said. “My private equity firm does not, [and] cannot, impose their will on our clinical decisions.”

Experts say the impact of PE acquisitions on individual physicians often depends on where a doctor ranks in the organization, what stage they are in their career, and how much control they had over the deal.

“It’s the older physicians who are usually selling the practice and getting the big payout,” said Anjali Dooley, a St. Louis–based health law attorney who counsels physicians about PE deals. “The younger doctors are usually not part of the deal, as they may still be employees. They don’t have any negotiating power. Hopefully, there is some transparency, but sometimes there is not, and they are blindsided by the deal.”

When it comes to workload, most PE-owned groups are put on a production-based model, such as a wRVU-based model, said Roger Strode, a Chicago-based health law attorney who focuses on health care mergers and acquisitions. Most already operate under such a model, but there might be some changes after a buyout.

Staffing may also change, added Ms. Dooley. The PE firms may want to add partners or companies already in their portfolios to create efficiencies, causing training or workflow changes.

In a hospital buyout, changes may depend on whether a department is a significant revenue generator for the hospital, Ms. Dooley noted.

PE firms frequently favor higher revenue–generating specialties, such as neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and plastic surgery. They closely scrutinize departments said that make less money, such as the emergency department or primary care, Ms. Dooley said. Physicians or teams that don’t fit the firm’s cost-efficiency plans may be terminated or replaced.

On the other hand, Mr. Strode said physicians may see improved electronic health records and collections.

“Some of your overall overhead costs may be reduced, because they’re better at it,” Mr. Strode said. “When you’ve got more scale, the cost per patient, the cost per hour, the cost per procedure, goes down, and the cost that’s applied against your production will go down. As [practices grow], they have more bargaining power with payers and you can potentially get better rates. At least, that’s the promise.”

Analysts note that PE health care acquisitions show no signs of slowing and that it pays for physicians to know what to expect and how to cope if their practice or hospital is acquired. Whether physicians have some control over a buyout or are blindsided by the transition, it’s critical to know what to consider, how workloads might change, and your options for settling in or settling up.

The PE industry has about $2 trillion lined up for potential investments in 2023, said Ms. Dooley.

“PE firms are looking at health care to expend some of this dry powder,” Ms. Dooley continued. “If done correctly, PE firms that are aware of health care regulations, compliance, and patient care issues can ... remove redundant services and improve ... efficiencies, but the bad is when that doesn’t happen, and the quality of care goes down or there are patient safety risks.”
 

How to prepare for and cope with PE partnerships

If your practice is considering a PE partnership, it’s important to explore the terms and conditions and carefully weigh the pros and cons, said Gary Herschman, a Newark, N.J.–based attorney who advises PE-owned physician groups.

“My recommendation is that physicians at a minimum conduct due diligence on all potential strategic options for their groups, and then make an informed decision regarding whether a partnership transaction is right for their group, as it’s not right for every group,” he said.

When Texas cardiologist Rick Snyder, MD, was considering PE partnerships, he spoke with physicians who made similar deals to determine whether they were satisfied years later, he said. In April, Snyder’s practice, HeartPlace, the largest physician-owned cardiology practice in Texas, was acquired by US Heart & Vascular, a practice management platform backed by PE firm Ares Management.

“I called every group that I knew that had done private equity for any meaningful amount of time,” Dr. Snyder said. “For the first year or two, everybody is in the honeymoon period. If the model is going to succeed or break down, it’s not going to be in the first year or two. So I wanted to talk to groups that had done this for a longer amount of time and find out what their pitfalls were. What would they have done differently? Has it been a productive relationship? Did they grow?”

Dr. Snyder, president of the Texas Medical Association, said his practice met with seven or eight firms before choosing one that best met their needs. His group wanted a platform that preserved their clinical autonomy, governance, and culture, he said. They also wanted to ensure they were not entering into a “buy and flip” scenario, but rather a “buy and build” plan.

“Thus, financial capital was not sufficient, they also had to have intellectual capital and relationship capital on their bench,” he said. “When we found the partner that embraced all of these factors as well as a history of buying and long-term building, we pulled the trigger and partnered with Ares and US Heart & Vascular Management. The partner we chose did not offer us the most money. We put a premium on these other criteria.”

“I always tell docs, know the culture of your group and your vision,” he said. “Before you go down that route, ask yourself what you want to accomplish and if it makes sense having a private equity partner to accomplish that vision with.”

For younger physicians or those with little control over buyouts, experts recommend they review their contracts and consider consulting with an attorney to better understand how the deal may affect their earnings and career prospects.

Those who have a much longer career runway need to weigh whether they want to work for a PE-linked practice, Mr. Strode said. For some, it’s time to check when their noncompete agreements end and find a position elsewhere.

Also, physicians should know their rights and the laws in their states regarding the corporate practice of medicine. Statutes vary by state, and knowing the provisions in your state helps doctors recognize their legal rights, learn possible exceptions to the requirements, and know the penalties for violations.

In Michigan, a group of physicians and other health professionals at Ascension St. John has voted to unionize. Doctors hope that the union, which includes advanced practice clinicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, will help improve patient care and protect working conditions for staff, Dr. Wiener said.

She advises physicians who are unhappy after acquisitions to speak up and stick together.

“That’s the biggest thing I think physicians should start doing,” she said. “Support each other and stand up. You are stronger together.”
 

Why is PE so attracted to health care?

PE firms typically buy practices or hospitals, work to make the entities more profitable, and then sell them, with the goal of doubling or tripling their investment over a short period. In general, PE firms aim for annual returns exceeding 20% after 3-7 years.

These firms know that health care is relatively recession-proof, that providers have third-party payers, and that the industry is fragmented and requires more efficiency, Ms. Dooley said.

When PE practice acquisitions started gaining momentum about 12 years ago, traditional hospital-based specialties such as anesthesiology and radiology were prime targets, said Mr. Strode.

At the same time, increasing challenges in private practice, such as declining compensation from payers, pressure to participate in value-based care programs, and rising regional competitors have fueled more physician groups to partner with PE firms, Mr. Herschman noted.

Physicians who partner with PE firms often benefit by having new access to capital to grow their practices, cost savings through group purchasing, and the ability to compete with larger health groups, Mr. Herschman said.

Questions remain, however, about how PE involvement affects health care use and spending. An April 2023 JAMA Viewpoint article called out the lack of oversight and regulation in the health care/PE space, suggesting that a stronger framework for regulation and transparency is needed.

A 2022 study in JAMA Health Forum that examined changes in prices and utilization associated with the PE acquisitions of 578 dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology physician practices from 2016 to 2020 found that prices increased by an average of 11%, and volume rose by 16%, after acquisition.

“We found that acquisitions were associated with increases in health care spending and utilization, as well as some other patterns of care like potential upcoding,” said Jane M. Zhu, MD, an author of the study and assistant professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

Another recent study that Dr. Zhu coauthored, published in Health Affairs, found that physician practices acquired by PE firms experience greater staff turnover and rely more heavily on advanced practice professionals than doctors.

“To the extent that that turnover indicates physicians are dissatisfied after private equity comes in, that’s really important to investigate further,” Dr. Zhu said.

PE firms owned 4% of U.S. hospitals in 2021 and 11% of nursing homes, according to a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report. The report does not include 2021 data on medical practices but notes that from 2013 to 2016, PE firms acquired at least 2% of physician practices. Estimates of PE deals are probably lower than actual numbers because of the lack of comprehensive information sources, according to the MedPAC report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After her emergency medicine group was acquired by a staffing firm backed by a large private equity (PE) firm, Michelle Wiener, MD, said the workflow changes came swiftly.

“Our staffing has been greatly reduced,” the Detroit physician said. “At this point, we have no say in anything. We have no say in the scheduling. We aren’t allowed to see what is billed under our name. The morale has really gone down.”

Dr. Wiener, who practices at Ascension St. John Hospital, said she and fellow physicians have repeatedly brought their concerns to TeamHealth, which in 2015 took over St. John Emergency Services PC. TeamHealth is owned by PE giant Blackstone.

“It’s very frustrating,” Dr. Wiener said. “We’re taking it from all sides.”

Blackstone and Ascension St. John did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

TeamHealth would not respond directly to questions about the Ascension St. John Hospital physicians or their concerns.

Spokesman Josh Hopson provided only a general statement: “TeamHealth is committed to making sure that clinicians have the resources and support needed to provide first-class care to patients, particularly with regard to staffing and compensation. TeamHealth has and will always put patient care first, and that is not impacted by its ownership model.”

Acquisitions of medical practices and hospitals by PE firms are rapidly growing, with more than 1,400 PE deals in health care in 2021 totaling upwards of $208 billion, according to PitchBook Data Inc., a Seattle-based firm that tracks mergers and acquisitions.

Some physicians praise the partnerships as an opportunity to improve technology and efficiency, whereas others decry them as raising patient costs and lowering the quality of care. A recent UC Berkeley study found that PE ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties, most notably oncology and gastroenterology.
 

What should you expect after PE acquisition?

Since his practice partnered with a PE firm in 2020, Milwaukee-based otolaryngologist Madan Kandula, MD, said he has found the changes positive. The practice has grown and improved operations in finance, accounting, compliance, and information technology, said Dr. Kandula, founder and CEO of Advent, an ENT practice with 15 clinics in four Midwestern states.

Dr. Kandula said his group already had a sound business practice, and that the goal of partnering with a PE firm wasn’t to change day-to-day operations but to propel the organization forward.

“From patient load to visit time to how we staff our clinics, there has been no change,” he said. “My private equity firm does not, [and] cannot, impose their will on our clinical decisions.”

Experts say the impact of PE acquisitions on individual physicians often depends on where a doctor ranks in the organization, what stage they are in their career, and how much control they had over the deal.

“It’s the older physicians who are usually selling the practice and getting the big payout,” said Anjali Dooley, a St. Louis–based health law attorney who counsels physicians about PE deals. “The younger doctors are usually not part of the deal, as they may still be employees. They don’t have any negotiating power. Hopefully, there is some transparency, but sometimes there is not, and they are blindsided by the deal.”

When it comes to workload, most PE-owned groups are put on a production-based model, such as a wRVU-based model, said Roger Strode, a Chicago-based health law attorney who focuses on health care mergers and acquisitions. Most already operate under such a model, but there might be some changes after a buyout.

Staffing may also change, added Ms. Dooley. The PE firms may want to add partners or companies already in their portfolios to create efficiencies, causing training or workflow changes.

In a hospital buyout, changes may depend on whether a department is a significant revenue generator for the hospital, Ms. Dooley noted.

PE firms frequently favor higher revenue–generating specialties, such as neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and plastic surgery. They closely scrutinize departments said that make less money, such as the emergency department or primary care, Ms. Dooley said. Physicians or teams that don’t fit the firm’s cost-efficiency plans may be terminated or replaced.

On the other hand, Mr. Strode said physicians may see improved electronic health records and collections.

“Some of your overall overhead costs may be reduced, because they’re better at it,” Mr. Strode said. “When you’ve got more scale, the cost per patient, the cost per hour, the cost per procedure, goes down, and the cost that’s applied against your production will go down. As [practices grow], they have more bargaining power with payers and you can potentially get better rates. At least, that’s the promise.”

Analysts note that PE health care acquisitions show no signs of slowing and that it pays for physicians to know what to expect and how to cope if their practice or hospital is acquired. Whether physicians have some control over a buyout or are blindsided by the transition, it’s critical to know what to consider, how workloads might change, and your options for settling in or settling up.

The PE industry has about $2 trillion lined up for potential investments in 2023, said Ms. Dooley.

“PE firms are looking at health care to expend some of this dry powder,” Ms. Dooley continued. “If done correctly, PE firms that are aware of health care regulations, compliance, and patient care issues can ... remove redundant services and improve ... efficiencies, but the bad is when that doesn’t happen, and the quality of care goes down or there are patient safety risks.”
 

How to prepare for and cope with PE partnerships

If your practice is considering a PE partnership, it’s important to explore the terms and conditions and carefully weigh the pros and cons, said Gary Herschman, a Newark, N.J.–based attorney who advises PE-owned physician groups.

“My recommendation is that physicians at a minimum conduct due diligence on all potential strategic options for their groups, and then make an informed decision regarding whether a partnership transaction is right for their group, as it’s not right for every group,” he said.

When Texas cardiologist Rick Snyder, MD, was considering PE partnerships, he spoke with physicians who made similar deals to determine whether they were satisfied years later, he said. In April, Snyder’s practice, HeartPlace, the largest physician-owned cardiology practice in Texas, was acquired by US Heart & Vascular, a practice management platform backed by PE firm Ares Management.

“I called every group that I knew that had done private equity for any meaningful amount of time,” Dr. Snyder said. “For the first year or two, everybody is in the honeymoon period. If the model is going to succeed or break down, it’s not going to be in the first year or two. So I wanted to talk to groups that had done this for a longer amount of time and find out what their pitfalls were. What would they have done differently? Has it been a productive relationship? Did they grow?”

Dr. Snyder, president of the Texas Medical Association, said his practice met with seven or eight firms before choosing one that best met their needs. His group wanted a platform that preserved their clinical autonomy, governance, and culture, he said. They also wanted to ensure they were not entering into a “buy and flip” scenario, but rather a “buy and build” plan.

“Thus, financial capital was not sufficient, they also had to have intellectual capital and relationship capital on their bench,” he said. “When we found the partner that embraced all of these factors as well as a history of buying and long-term building, we pulled the trigger and partnered with Ares and US Heart & Vascular Management. The partner we chose did not offer us the most money. We put a premium on these other criteria.”

“I always tell docs, know the culture of your group and your vision,” he said. “Before you go down that route, ask yourself what you want to accomplish and if it makes sense having a private equity partner to accomplish that vision with.”

For younger physicians or those with little control over buyouts, experts recommend they review their contracts and consider consulting with an attorney to better understand how the deal may affect their earnings and career prospects.

Those who have a much longer career runway need to weigh whether they want to work for a PE-linked practice, Mr. Strode said. For some, it’s time to check when their noncompete agreements end and find a position elsewhere.

Also, physicians should know their rights and the laws in their states regarding the corporate practice of medicine. Statutes vary by state, and knowing the provisions in your state helps doctors recognize their legal rights, learn possible exceptions to the requirements, and know the penalties for violations.

In Michigan, a group of physicians and other health professionals at Ascension St. John has voted to unionize. Doctors hope that the union, which includes advanced practice clinicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, will help improve patient care and protect working conditions for staff, Dr. Wiener said.

She advises physicians who are unhappy after acquisitions to speak up and stick together.

“That’s the biggest thing I think physicians should start doing,” she said. “Support each other and stand up. You are stronger together.”
 

Why is PE so attracted to health care?

PE firms typically buy practices or hospitals, work to make the entities more profitable, and then sell them, with the goal of doubling or tripling their investment over a short period. In general, PE firms aim for annual returns exceeding 20% after 3-7 years.

These firms know that health care is relatively recession-proof, that providers have third-party payers, and that the industry is fragmented and requires more efficiency, Ms. Dooley said.

When PE practice acquisitions started gaining momentum about 12 years ago, traditional hospital-based specialties such as anesthesiology and radiology were prime targets, said Mr. Strode.

At the same time, increasing challenges in private practice, such as declining compensation from payers, pressure to participate in value-based care programs, and rising regional competitors have fueled more physician groups to partner with PE firms, Mr. Herschman noted.

Physicians who partner with PE firms often benefit by having new access to capital to grow their practices, cost savings through group purchasing, and the ability to compete with larger health groups, Mr. Herschman said.

Questions remain, however, about how PE involvement affects health care use and spending. An April 2023 JAMA Viewpoint article called out the lack of oversight and regulation in the health care/PE space, suggesting that a stronger framework for regulation and transparency is needed.

A 2022 study in JAMA Health Forum that examined changes in prices and utilization associated with the PE acquisitions of 578 dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology physician practices from 2016 to 2020 found that prices increased by an average of 11%, and volume rose by 16%, after acquisition.

“We found that acquisitions were associated with increases in health care spending and utilization, as well as some other patterns of care like potential upcoding,” said Jane M. Zhu, MD, an author of the study and assistant professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

Another recent study that Dr. Zhu coauthored, published in Health Affairs, found that physician practices acquired by PE firms experience greater staff turnover and rely more heavily on advanced practice professionals than doctors.

“To the extent that that turnover indicates physicians are dissatisfied after private equity comes in, that’s really important to investigate further,” Dr. Zhu said.

PE firms owned 4% of U.S. hospitals in 2021 and 11% of nursing homes, according to a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report. The report does not include 2021 data on medical practices but notes that from 2013 to 2016, PE firms acquired at least 2% of physician practices. Estimates of PE deals are probably lower than actual numbers because of the lack of comprehensive information sources, according to the MedPAC report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – “We need to develop new therapies to treat addiction because of the related cost to society, which is extremely high,” said Bruno Roméo, MD, psychiatrist and addiction specialist at Paul Brousse Hospital in Villejuif, France, at the Paris-based Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Neurology Conference. Dr. Roméo spoke about the current place of psychedelics in the treatment of addiction.

“Smoking and alcohol consumption are the two main preventable causes of death in France,” he said. “Current management strategies for these addictions rarely involve pharmacological therapies, which are not very effective, in any case. We have massive relapse rates, signaling the need to develop other treatments, like psychedelic drugs.”

But what data are available on the efficacy of psychedelics in treating addiction?

Alcohol use disorder

There are few data concerning the role of psychedelics in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, but one controlled, randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of psilocybin. That trial was published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2022.

That study included 95 patients with alcohol use disorder; 49 were treated with psilocybin, and 46 were treated with diphenhydramine.

An initial medication session of psilocybin was given in week 4, then another in week 8 at a higher dose. The number of drinking days, the number of heavy drinking days, and the number of drinks consumed between weeks 32 and 36 were assessed.

The investigators showed that, after two sessions with psilocybin, there was a significant reduction in the number of heavy drinking days. In the control group, between weeks 5 and 36, 20% of days involved heavy drinking, whereas in the psilocybin group, 10% of days involved heavy drinking.

There was also a significant and rapid reduction in the number of drinking days, and this was maintained over time. Between weeks 5 and 36, just over 40% of days were reported as drinking days in the control group versus slightly more than 30% in the psilocybin group.

Similarly, the number of glasses per day was drastically reduced after taking psilocybin, and the effect occurred extremely quickly. Consumption went from six drinks to less than one drink between weeks 5 and 8. Overall, between weeks 5 and 36, the number of drinks consumed per day was more than two in the placebo group and more than one in the psilocybin group.

“Psilocybin was seen as having potential efficacy in treating alcohol use disorder. But we must tread carefully with these results; the profile of the patients enrolled in this study is different to that of the patients we regularly see in our addiction clinics. The patients enrolled in the study reported less than 60% of days as heavy drinking days,” said Dr. Romeo.
 

Candidates for psilocybin

According to a retrospective survey of 160 respondents that was conducted online at Paul Brousse Hospital, patients with the most severe cases of alcohol use disorder who have the most mystical psychedelic experiences seem to respond best to psilocybin and to reduce their alcohol use. It also appears that patients whose alcohol use decreased the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study. (Psychological flexibility is the ability to adapt to change and to cope with positive and negative experiences in real time without being fazed or trying to flee from the situation.) “It’s as if they had a broader capacity for change, and psychedelics helped them more,” said Dr. Roméo.

Smoking cessation

“There are even fewer studies for smoking,” said Dr. Roméo. In a pilot study with 15 patients, the researchers gave two or three doses of psilocybin at 20-30 mg in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy one session per week for 10 weeks. Thereafter, patients were assessed three times: after 6 months, 12 months, and 30 months.

The results showed a significant reduction in smoking. Patients went from smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day to smoking one to two cigarettes per day before going back up to six cigarettes daily.

Regarding abstinence rates, 12 of 15 patients had stopped smoking after 6 months, 8 of 15 after 1 year, and 7 of 15 after 30 months. “This study produced some interesting results, although caution must obviously be taken due to the very low number of patients enrolled,” said Dr. Roméo.

As is the case for alcohol, a retrospective survey conducted via questionnaire at Paul Brousse Hospital showed that the patients who smoked the most and who had the most mystical psychedelic experiences seemed to respond best to psilocybin and therefore to reduce their tobacco use. It also seemed to be the case that patients who reduced tobacco use the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study.
 

Constraints on psychedelics

“Psychedelics are somewhat effective in treating addiction, but there are various limitations to their use,” said Dr. Roméo.

One of those limitations is societal. Laurence Bézo, MD, of the addiction services clinic at Paul Brousse Hospital, asked doctors to respond to a questionnaire to determine what they thought about psychedelics. To date, 407 have responded, including 280 general practitioners, 50 addiction specialists, and 50 specialist physicians. Overall, 50% think that psychedelics have no therapeutic potential. Three of five doctors also said that psychedelics are dangerous. Just over half thought that their use is associated with a severe risk of aggression aimed at oneself and toward others. Likewise, half think that the risk of dependency is very high and that there is a risk of co-occurring psychiatric disorders. “From the pool of physicians queried, the consensus is that psychedelics are pretty dangerous. People also seem to frown upon prescribing psychedelics in France,” said Dr. Roméo.

Participants went as far as to classify psychedelics as some of the most dangerous drugs out there.

Using a 7-point scale, they classified psychedelics below heroin and cocaine in terms of dangerousness. They are deemed much more harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.

“A survey of the public carried out several years ago by leading French market research group IFOP had the exact same findings. Nevertheless, a number of studies have set out to determine how dangerous psychedelics are, and their findings point to this class of drugs as being among the least harmful for the individual patient and those around them. On the contrary, alcohol, heroin, crack cocaine (or even cocaine),methamphetamine, and tobacco were shown to be the most harmful. Additionally, psychedelics have a very low risk of dependency and the lowest risk of lethality. There is complete dissonance between what recent studies show us and what society, and some doctors, think,” said Dr. Roméo.

Besides these assumptions, another constraint to the use of psychedelics relates to methods adopted in related clinical studies. “Due to the effect psychedelics have, in the trials conducted, 9 participants and 9 doctors out of 10 are aware of what they have taken or given, respectively. This is a very important limitation. Nowadays, researchers don’t know how to conduct accurate double-blind studies,” said Dr. Roméo.

In sum, for psychiatrists, psychedelics are promising in addiction therapy, but health care professionals, public authorities, and society as a whole must be better informed about their use, and received ideas must be dispelled.

“The findings need to be replicated, but overall, psychedelics are really quite promising in treating both alcohol and tobacco use disorder. They are generally well tolerated with few serious side effects. There is no deterioration in patients with psychiatric conditions while they are taking psychedelics. And if persistent symptoms of psychosis do occur, which is extremely rare, it’s probably because there are preexisting underlying issues at play. We also don’t see increased blood pressure or any other serious physical anomalies. In a supervised setting, as is the case with studies involving psychotherapeutic support, we can no longer say, in this day and age, that psychedelics are harmful,” said Dr. Roméo.

Dr. Roméo reported no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – “We need to develop new therapies to treat addiction because of the related cost to society, which is extremely high,” said Bruno Roméo, MD, psychiatrist and addiction specialist at Paul Brousse Hospital in Villejuif, France, at the Paris-based Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Neurology Conference. Dr. Roméo spoke about the current place of psychedelics in the treatment of addiction.

“Smoking and alcohol consumption are the two main preventable causes of death in France,” he said. “Current management strategies for these addictions rarely involve pharmacological therapies, which are not very effective, in any case. We have massive relapse rates, signaling the need to develop other treatments, like psychedelic drugs.”

But what data are available on the efficacy of psychedelics in treating addiction?

Alcohol use disorder

There are few data concerning the role of psychedelics in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, but one controlled, randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of psilocybin. That trial was published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2022.

That study included 95 patients with alcohol use disorder; 49 were treated with psilocybin, and 46 were treated with diphenhydramine.

An initial medication session of psilocybin was given in week 4, then another in week 8 at a higher dose. The number of drinking days, the number of heavy drinking days, and the number of drinks consumed between weeks 32 and 36 were assessed.

The investigators showed that, after two sessions with psilocybin, there was a significant reduction in the number of heavy drinking days. In the control group, between weeks 5 and 36, 20% of days involved heavy drinking, whereas in the psilocybin group, 10% of days involved heavy drinking.

There was also a significant and rapid reduction in the number of drinking days, and this was maintained over time. Between weeks 5 and 36, just over 40% of days were reported as drinking days in the control group versus slightly more than 30% in the psilocybin group.

Similarly, the number of glasses per day was drastically reduced after taking psilocybin, and the effect occurred extremely quickly. Consumption went from six drinks to less than one drink between weeks 5 and 8. Overall, between weeks 5 and 36, the number of drinks consumed per day was more than two in the placebo group and more than one in the psilocybin group.

“Psilocybin was seen as having potential efficacy in treating alcohol use disorder. But we must tread carefully with these results; the profile of the patients enrolled in this study is different to that of the patients we regularly see in our addiction clinics. The patients enrolled in the study reported less than 60% of days as heavy drinking days,” said Dr. Romeo.
 

Candidates for psilocybin

According to a retrospective survey of 160 respondents that was conducted online at Paul Brousse Hospital, patients with the most severe cases of alcohol use disorder who have the most mystical psychedelic experiences seem to respond best to psilocybin and to reduce their alcohol use. It also appears that patients whose alcohol use decreased the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study. (Psychological flexibility is the ability to adapt to change and to cope with positive and negative experiences in real time without being fazed or trying to flee from the situation.) “It’s as if they had a broader capacity for change, and psychedelics helped them more,” said Dr. Roméo.

Smoking cessation

“There are even fewer studies for smoking,” said Dr. Roméo. In a pilot study with 15 patients, the researchers gave two or three doses of psilocybin at 20-30 mg in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy one session per week for 10 weeks. Thereafter, patients were assessed three times: after 6 months, 12 months, and 30 months.

The results showed a significant reduction in smoking. Patients went from smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day to smoking one to two cigarettes per day before going back up to six cigarettes daily.

Regarding abstinence rates, 12 of 15 patients had stopped smoking after 6 months, 8 of 15 after 1 year, and 7 of 15 after 30 months. “This study produced some interesting results, although caution must obviously be taken due to the very low number of patients enrolled,” said Dr. Roméo.

As is the case for alcohol, a retrospective survey conducted via questionnaire at Paul Brousse Hospital showed that the patients who smoked the most and who had the most mystical psychedelic experiences seemed to respond best to psilocybin and therefore to reduce their tobacco use. It also seemed to be the case that patients who reduced tobacco use the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study.
 

Constraints on psychedelics

“Psychedelics are somewhat effective in treating addiction, but there are various limitations to their use,” said Dr. Roméo.

One of those limitations is societal. Laurence Bézo, MD, of the addiction services clinic at Paul Brousse Hospital, asked doctors to respond to a questionnaire to determine what they thought about psychedelics. To date, 407 have responded, including 280 general practitioners, 50 addiction specialists, and 50 specialist physicians. Overall, 50% think that psychedelics have no therapeutic potential. Three of five doctors also said that psychedelics are dangerous. Just over half thought that their use is associated with a severe risk of aggression aimed at oneself and toward others. Likewise, half think that the risk of dependency is very high and that there is a risk of co-occurring psychiatric disorders. “From the pool of physicians queried, the consensus is that psychedelics are pretty dangerous. People also seem to frown upon prescribing psychedelics in France,” said Dr. Roméo.

Participants went as far as to classify psychedelics as some of the most dangerous drugs out there.

Using a 7-point scale, they classified psychedelics below heroin and cocaine in terms of dangerousness. They are deemed much more harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.

“A survey of the public carried out several years ago by leading French market research group IFOP had the exact same findings. Nevertheless, a number of studies have set out to determine how dangerous psychedelics are, and their findings point to this class of drugs as being among the least harmful for the individual patient and those around them. On the contrary, alcohol, heroin, crack cocaine (or even cocaine),methamphetamine, and tobacco were shown to be the most harmful. Additionally, psychedelics have a very low risk of dependency and the lowest risk of lethality. There is complete dissonance between what recent studies show us and what society, and some doctors, think,” said Dr. Roméo.

Besides these assumptions, another constraint to the use of psychedelics relates to methods adopted in related clinical studies. “Due to the effect psychedelics have, in the trials conducted, 9 participants and 9 doctors out of 10 are aware of what they have taken or given, respectively. This is a very important limitation. Nowadays, researchers don’t know how to conduct accurate double-blind studies,” said Dr. Roméo.

In sum, for psychiatrists, psychedelics are promising in addiction therapy, but health care professionals, public authorities, and society as a whole must be better informed about their use, and received ideas must be dispelled.

“The findings need to be replicated, but overall, psychedelics are really quite promising in treating both alcohol and tobacco use disorder. They are generally well tolerated with few serious side effects. There is no deterioration in patients with psychiatric conditions while they are taking psychedelics. And if persistent symptoms of psychosis do occur, which is extremely rare, it’s probably because there are preexisting underlying issues at play. We also don’t see increased blood pressure or any other serious physical anomalies. In a supervised setting, as is the case with studies involving psychotherapeutic support, we can no longer say, in this day and age, that psychedelics are harmful,” said Dr. Roméo.

Dr. Roméo reported no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – “We need to develop new therapies to treat addiction because of the related cost to society, which is extremely high,” said Bruno Roméo, MD, psychiatrist and addiction specialist at Paul Brousse Hospital in Villejuif, France, at the Paris-based Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Neurology Conference. Dr. Roméo spoke about the current place of psychedelics in the treatment of addiction.

“Smoking and alcohol consumption are the two main preventable causes of death in France,” he said. “Current management strategies for these addictions rarely involve pharmacological therapies, which are not very effective, in any case. We have massive relapse rates, signaling the need to develop other treatments, like psychedelic drugs.”

But what data are available on the efficacy of psychedelics in treating addiction?

Alcohol use disorder

There are few data concerning the role of psychedelics in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, but one controlled, randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of psilocybin. That trial was published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2022.

That study included 95 patients with alcohol use disorder; 49 were treated with psilocybin, and 46 were treated with diphenhydramine.

An initial medication session of psilocybin was given in week 4, then another in week 8 at a higher dose. The number of drinking days, the number of heavy drinking days, and the number of drinks consumed between weeks 32 and 36 were assessed.

The investigators showed that, after two sessions with psilocybin, there was a significant reduction in the number of heavy drinking days. In the control group, between weeks 5 and 36, 20% of days involved heavy drinking, whereas in the psilocybin group, 10% of days involved heavy drinking.

There was also a significant and rapid reduction in the number of drinking days, and this was maintained over time. Between weeks 5 and 36, just over 40% of days were reported as drinking days in the control group versus slightly more than 30% in the psilocybin group.

Similarly, the number of glasses per day was drastically reduced after taking psilocybin, and the effect occurred extremely quickly. Consumption went from six drinks to less than one drink between weeks 5 and 8. Overall, between weeks 5 and 36, the number of drinks consumed per day was more than two in the placebo group and more than one in the psilocybin group.

“Psilocybin was seen as having potential efficacy in treating alcohol use disorder. But we must tread carefully with these results; the profile of the patients enrolled in this study is different to that of the patients we regularly see in our addiction clinics. The patients enrolled in the study reported less than 60% of days as heavy drinking days,” said Dr. Romeo.
 

Candidates for psilocybin

According to a retrospective survey of 160 respondents that was conducted online at Paul Brousse Hospital, patients with the most severe cases of alcohol use disorder who have the most mystical psychedelic experiences seem to respond best to psilocybin and to reduce their alcohol use. It also appears that patients whose alcohol use decreased the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study. (Psychological flexibility is the ability to adapt to change and to cope with positive and negative experiences in real time without being fazed or trying to flee from the situation.) “It’s as if they had a broader capacity for change, and psychedelics helped them more,” said Dr. Roméo.

Smoking cessation

“There are even fewer studies for smoking,” said Dr. Roméo. In a pilot study with 15 patients, the researchers gave two or three doses of psilocybin at 20-30 mg in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy one session per week for 10 weeks. Thereafter, patients were assessed three times: after 6 months, 12 months, and 30 months.

The results showed a significant reduction in smoking. Patients went from smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day to smoking one to two cigarettes per day before going back up to six cigarettes daily.

Regarding abstinence rates, 12 of 15 patients had stopped smoking after 6 months, 8 of 15 after 1 year, and 7 of 15 after 30 months. “This study produced some interesting results, although caution must obviously be taken due to the very low number of patients enrolled,” said Dr. Roméo.

As is the case for alcohol, a retrospective survey conducted via questionnaire at Paul Brousse Hospital showed that the patients who smoked the most and who had the most mystical psychedelic experiences seemed to respond best to psilocybin and therefore to reduce their tobacco use. It also seemed to be the case that patients who reduced tobacco use the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study.
 

Constraints on psychedelics

“Psychedelics are somewhat effective in treating addiction, but there are various limitations to their use,” said Dr. Roméo.

One of those limitations is societal. Laurence Bézo, MD, of the addiction services clinic at Paul Brousse Hospital, asked doctors to respond to a questionnaire to determine what they thought about psychedelics. To date, 407 have responded, including 280 general practitioners, 50 addiction specialists, and 50 specialist physicians. Overall, 50% think that psychedelics have no therapeutic potential. Three of five doctors also said that psychedelics are dangerous. Just over half thought that their use is associated with a severe risk of aggression aimed at oneself and toward others. Likewise, half think that the risk of dependency is very high and that there is a risk of co-occurring psychiatric disorders. “From the pool of physicians queried, the consensus is that psychedelics are pretty dangerous. People also seem to frown upon prescribing psychedelics in France,” said Dr. Roméo.

Participants went as far as to classify psychedelics as some of the most dangerous drugs out there.

Using a 7-point scale, they classified psychedelics below heroin and cocaine in terms of dangerousness. They are deemed much more harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.

“A survey of the public carried out several years ago by leading French market research group IFOP had the exact same findings. Nevertheless, a number of studies have set out to determine how dangerous psychedelics are, and their findings point to this class of drugs as being among the least harmful for the individual patient and those around them. On the contrary, alcohol, heroin, crack cocaine (or even cocaine),methamphetamine, and tobacco were shown to be the most harmful. Additionally, psychedelics have a very low risk of dependency and the lowest risk of lethality. There is complete dissonance between what recent studies show us and what society, and some doctors, think,” said Dr. Roméo.

Besides these assumptions, another constraint to the use of psychedelics relates to methods adopted in related clinical studies. “Due to the effect psychedelics have, in the trials conducted, 9 participants and 9 doctors out of 10 are aware of what they have taken or given, respectively. This is a very important limitation. Nowadays, researchers don’t know how to conduct accurate double-blind studies,” said Dr. Roméo.

In sum, for psychiatrists, psychedelics are promising in addiction therapy, but health care professionals, public authorities, and society as a whole must be better informed about their use, and received ideas must be dispelled.

“The findings need to be replicated, but overall, psychedelics are really quite promising in treating both alcohol and tobacco use disorder. They are generally well tolerated with few serious side effects. There is no deterioration in patients with psychiatric conditions while they are taking psychedelics. And if persistent symptoms of psychosis do occur, which is extremely rare, it’s probably because there are preexisting underlying issues at play. We also don’t see increased blood pressure or any other serious physical anomalies. In a supervised setting, as is the case with studies involving psychotherapeutic support, we can no longer say, in this day and age, that psychedelics are harmful,” said Dr. Roméo.

Dr. Roméo reported no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

The anti–amyloid-beta monoclonal antibodies lecanemab and aducanumab have introduced a new class of drugs for targeting early stage Alzheimer’s disease, but fewer than 10% of older adults with early signs of the disease would meet eligibility requirements to receive either treatment, a cross sectional study has found.

Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.

Mayo Clinic

“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population

The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).

The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.

For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m² was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.

When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.

Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.

“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”

Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”

One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
 

Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
 

The anti–amyloid-beta monoclonal antibodies lecanemab and aducanumab have introduced a new class of drugs for targeting early stage Alzheimer’s disease, but fewer than 10% of older adults with early signs of the disease would meet eligibility requirements to receive either treatment, a cross sectional study has found.

Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.

Mayo Clinic

“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population

The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).

The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.

For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m² was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.

When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.

Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.

“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”

Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”

One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
 

Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
 

The anti–amyloid-beta monoclonal antibodies lecanemab and aducanumab have introduced a new class of drugs for targeting early stage Alzheimer’s disease, but fewer than 10% of older adults with early signs of the disease would meet eligibility requirements to receive either treatment, a cross sectional study has found.

Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.

Mayo Clinic

“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population

The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).

The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.

For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m² was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.

When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.

Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.

“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”

Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”

One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
 

Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
 

Children exposed to physical assault were twice as likely to be diagnosed with mental illness in the years following the assault than those who weren’t exposed, a new population-based study shows.

The greatest risk was found in the first year following the assault, increasing to three times the risk of being diagnosed with mental illness, compared with children not assaulted. Mood and anxiety disorders were the most common diagnoses.

“From a clinical and policy perspective, our study highlights that there is a critical opportunity for health care clinicians to support children in the first year following physical assault,” Natasha Saunders, MD, MSc, of the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, and colleagues wrote. “There is a need to develop and implement targeted mental illness prevention, screening, and treatment programs for assaulted children.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

While it has been well established that children exposed to assault have an increased risk for subsequent mental illness, Dr. Saunders and coinvestigators noted that using an age-matched, population-based cohort study would enable them to obtain detailed information on the patterns and timing of subsequent psychiatric diagnoses.

To that end, the researchers used several medical databases in Ontario to find 5,487 children (infants to age 13 years) who required an ED visit or hospitalization for a physical assault in Ontario between 2006 and 2014.

These children were matched on a 1:4 basis with 21,948 children not exposed to physical assault. The children were followed until their 18th birthday or until the study ended in March 2019.

The researchers found that more than a third of the children (39%) who were exposed to assault received a mental health diagnosis, according to health records, compared with 23% of unexposed children.

Mood and anxiety disorders were the most common diagnoses among children exposed to assault (16.2% vs. 10.6%, respectively); followed by select childhood behavior disorders, such as ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, or conduct disorder (9.9% vs. 5.2%); and substance use disorders (2.4% vs. 0.4%).
 

Triple risk of mental illness in first year

The researchers found that the children exposed to assault were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness over a median follow-up of 7 years, compared with those not exposed to assault (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.85,2.08).

In the year following the assault, children exposed to assault bore three times the risk of being diagnosed with a mental illness, compared with unexposed children (aHR, 3.08; 95% CI, 2.68,3.54).

In addition, the children who had been assaulted were more likely to be diagnosed in an acute care setting than those who were not assaulted (14% vs. 2.8%).

The children who had been assaulted were an average age of 7 years and were more often boys (55% vs. 45%). Children who were assaulted were also more likely to have mothers with mental illness (35% vs. 19%).

The investigators noted that the study likely underestimated the number of children exposed to assault, as many do not end up in the ED.

In addition to highlighting the need for medical personnel to support children in the first year following assault, the investigators wrote that “our results also advocate for accessible mental health care outside of the acute setting and for care that addresses the social and health needs of mothers, who themselves have high social and health risks.”

This study received funding from the National Foundation to End Child Abuse and Neglect and the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Saunders reported receiving personal fees from The BMJ Group, Archives of Diseases in Childhood outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children exposed to physical assault were twice as likely to be diagnosed with mental illness in the years following the assault than those who weren’t exposed, a new population-based study shows.

The greatest risk was found in the first year following the assault, increasing to three times the risk of being diagnosed with mental illness, compared with children not assaulted. Mood and anxiety disorders were the most common diagnoses.

“From a clinical and policy perspective, our study highlights that there is a critical opportunity for health care clinicians to support children in the first year following physical assault,” Natasha Saunders, MD, MSc, of the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, and colleagues wrote. “There is a need to develop and implement targeted mental illness prevention, screening, and treatment programs for assaulted children.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

While it has been well established that children exposed to assault have an increased risk for subsequent mental illness, Dr. Saunders and coinvestigators noted that using an age-matched, population-based cohort study would enable them to obtain detailed information on the patterns and timing of subsequent psychiatric diagnoses.

To that end, the researchers used several medical databases in Ontario to find 5,487 children (infants to age 13 years) who required an ED visit or hospitalization for a physical assault in Ontario between 2006 and 2014.

These children were matched on a 1:4 basis with 21,948 children not exposed to physical assault. The children were followed until their 18th birthday or until the study ended in March 2019.

The researchers found that more than a third of the children (39%) who were exposed to assault received a mental health diagnosis, according to health records, compared with 23% of unexposed children.

Mood and anxiety disorders were the most common diagnoses among children exposed to assault (16.2% vs. 10.6%, respectively); followed by select childhood behavior disorders, such as ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, or conduct disorder (9.9% vs. 5.2%); and substance use disorders (2.4% vs. 0.4%).
 

Triple risk of mental illness in first year

The researchers found that the children exposed to assault were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness over a median follow-up of 7 years, compared with those not exposed to assault (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.85,2.08).

In the year following the assault, children exposed to assault bore three times the risk of being diagnosed with a mental illness, compared with unexposed children (aHR, 3.08; 95% CI, 2.68,3.54).

In addition, the children who had been assaulted were more likely to be diagnosed in an acute care setting than those who were not assaulted (14% vs. 2.8%).

The children who had been assaulted were an average age of 7 years and were more often boys (55% vs. 45%). Children who were assaulted were also more likely to have mothers with mental illness (35% vs. 19%).

The investigators noted that the study likely underestimated the number of children exposed to assault, as many do not end up in the ED.

In addition to highlighting the need for medical personnel to support children in the first year following assault, the investigators wrote that “our results also advocate for accessible mental health care outside of the acute setting and for care that addresses the social and health needs of mothers, who themselves have high social and health risks.”

This study received funding from the National Foundation to End Child Abuse and Neglect and the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Saunders reported receiving personal fees from The BMJ Group, Archives of Diseases in Childhood outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children exposed to physical assault were twice as likely to be diagnosed with mental illness in the years following the assault than those who weren’t exposed, a new population-based study shows.

The greatest risk was found in the first year following the assault, increasing to three times the risk of being diagnosed with mental illness, compared with children not assaulted. Mood and anxiety disorders were the most common diagnoses.

“From a clinical and policy perspective, our study highlights that there is a critical opportunity for health care clinicians to support children in the first year following physical assault,” Natasha Saunders, MD, MSc, of the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, and colleagues wrote. “There is a need to develop and implement targeted mental illness prevention, screening, and treatment programs for assaulted children.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

While it has been well established that children exposed to assault have an increased risk for subsequent mental illness, Dr. Saunders and coinvestigators noted that using an age-matched, population-based cohort study would enable them to obtain detailed information on the patterns and timing of subsequent psychiatric diagnoses.

To that end, the researchers used several medical databases in Ontario to find 5,487 children (infants to age 13 years) who required an ED visit or hospitalization for a physical assault in Ontario between 2006 and 2014.

These children were matched on a 1:4 basis with 21,948 children not exposed to physical assault. The children were followed until their 18th birthday or until the study ended in March 2019.

The researchers found that more than a third of the children (39%) who were exposed to assault received a mental health diagnosis, according to health records, compared with 23% of unexposed children.

Mood and anxiety disorders were the most common diagnoses among children exposed to assault (16.2% vs. 10.6%, respectively); followed by select childhood behavior disorders, such as ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, or conduct disorder (9.9% vs. 5.2%); and substance use disorders (2.4% vs. 0.4%).
 

Triple risk of mental illness in first year

The researchers found that the children exposed to assault were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness over a median follow-up of 7 years, compared with those not exposed to assault (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.85,2.08).

In the year following the assault, children exposed to assault bore three times the risk of being diagnosed with a mental illness, compared with unexposed children (aHR, 3.08; 95% CI, 2.68,3.54).

In addition, the children who had been assaulted were more likely to be diagnosed in an acute care setting than those who were not assaulted (14% vs. 2.8%).

The children who had been assaulted were an average age of 7 years and were more often boys (55% vs. 45%). Children who were assaulted were also more likely to have mothers with mental illness (35% vs. 19%).

The investigators noted that the study likely underestimated the number of children exposed to assault, as many do not end up in the ED.

In addition to highlighting the need for medical personnel to support children in the first year following assault, the investigators wrote that “our results also advocate for accessible mental health care outside of the acute setting and for care that addresses the social and health needs of mothers, who themselves have high social and health risks.”

This study received funding from the National Foundation to End Child Abuse and Neglect and the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Saunders reported receiving personal fees from The BMJ Group, Archives of Diseases in Childhood outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment with medication often used for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was associated with lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, or death in adults with borderline personality disorder, based on data from more than 17,000 individuals.

Although most patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) receive psychopharmacological treatment, clinical guidance and outcomes data for specific medication use in these patients are lacking, wrote Johannes Lieslehto, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Finland, Niuvankuja, and colleagues.

Dr. Lieslehto

In a study published in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , the researchers – using national databases in Sweden – identified 17,532 adults with BPD who were treated with medications between 2006 and 2018.

Medications included benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants, as well as medications often used for ADHD: clozapine, lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, and methylphenidate. The mean age of the study population was 29.8 years and 2,649 were men.

The primary outcomes were psychiatric hospitalization (which served as an indication of treatment failure), all-cause hospitalization, or death.

Overall, treatment with benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants was associated with increased risk of psychiatric rehospitalization, with hazard ratios of 1.38, 1.19, and 1.18, respectively, and with increased risk of all-cause hospitalization or death (HR 1.37, HR 1.21, HR 1.17, respectively).

By contrast, treatment with ADHD medication was associated with decreased risk of psychiatric hospitalization (HR = 0.88), as well as a decreased risk of all-cause hospitalization or death (HR = 0.86).

Specifically, clozapine, lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, and methylphenidate were associated with decreased risk of psychiatric rehospitalization, with hazard ratios of 0.54, 0.79, 0.84, and 0.90, respectively.

Treatment with mood stabilizers had no significant impact on outcomes.

BPD patients treated with ADHD medications also may exhibit ADHD symptoms, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, “Although BPD and ADHD partially overlap in symptoms such as impulsivity and emotion dysregulation, previous efforts to investigate the efficacy of ADHD medication treatment in BPD are scarce,” and randomized, controlled trials are needed to determine whether these medications should be given to BPD patients without comorbid ADHD symptoms, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of clinical parameters on symptom severity, quality of life, and level of function, and premature prescribing of medication (protopathic bias) may have affected the results, the researchers noted.

The results were strengthened by the large sample size and long follow-up, which increases the generalizability to real-world patients, and suggest that many pharmacological treatments for BPD may not improve outcomes, the researchers said. However, “even in the presence of possible protopathic bias, treatment with lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, methylphenidate, and clozapine was associated with improved outcomes, encouraging further research on these treatments,” they said.

The study was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Academy of Finland. Dr. Lieslehto had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Treatment with medication often used for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was associated with lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, or death in adults with borderline personality disorder, based on data from more than 17,000 individuals.

Although most patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) receive psychopharmacological treatment, clinical guidance and outcomes data for specific medication use in these patients are lacking, wrote Johannes Lieslehto, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Finland, Niuvankuja, and colleagues.

Dr. Lieslehto

In a study published in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , the researchers – using national databases in Sweden – identified 17,532 adults with BPD who were treated with medications between 2006 and 2018.

Medications included benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants, as well as medications often used for ADHD: clozapine, lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, and methylphenidate. The mean age of the study population was 29.8 years and 2,649 were men.

The primary outcomes were psychiatric hospitalization (which served as an indication of treatment failure), all-cause hospitalization, or death.

Overall, treatment with benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants was associated with increased risk of psychiatric rehospitalization, with hazard ratios of 1.38, 1.19, and 1.18, respectively, and with increased risk of all-cause hospitalization or death (HR 1.37, HR 1.21, HR 1.17, respectively).

By contrast, treatment with ADHD medication was associated with decreased risk of psychiatric hospitalization (HR = 0.88), as well as a decreased risk of all-cause hospitalization or death (HR = 0.86).

Specifically, clozapine, lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, and methylphenidate were associated with decreased risk of psychiatric rehospitalization, with hazard ratios of 0.54, 0.79, 0.84, and 0.90, respectively.

Treatment with mood stabilizers had no significant impact on outcomes.

BPD patients treated with ADHD medications also may exhibit ADHD symptoms, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, “Although BPD and ADHD partially overlap in symptoms such as impulsivity and emotion dysregulation, previous efforts to investigate the efficacy of ADHD medication treatment in BPD are scarce,” and randomized, controlled trials are needed to determine whether these medications should be given to BPD patients without comorbid ADHD symptoms, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of clinical parameters on symptom severity, quality of life, and level of function, and premature prescribing of medication (protopathic bias) may have affected the results, the researchers noted.

The results were strengthened by the large sample size and long follow-up, which increases the generalizability to real-world patients, and suggest that many pharmacological treatments for BPD may not improve outcomes, the researchers said. However, “even in the presence of possible protopathic bias, treatment with lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, methylphenidate, and clozapine was associated with improved outcomes, encouraging further research on these treatments,” they said.

The study was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Academy of Finland. Dr. Lieslehto had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Treatment with medication often used for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was associated with lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, or death in adults with borderline personality disorder, based on data from more than 17,000 individuals.

Although most patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) receive psychopharmacological treatment, clinical guidance and outcomes data for specific medication use in these patients are lacking, wrote Johannes Lieslehto, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Finland, Niuvankuja, and colleagues.

Dr. Lieslehto

In a study published in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , the researchers – using national databases in Sweden – identified 17,532 adults with BPD who were treated with medications between 2006 and 2018.

Medications included benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants, as well as medications often used for ADHD: clozapine, lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, and methylphenidate. The mean age of the study population was 29.8 years and 2,649 were men.

The primary outcomes were psychiatric hospitalization (which served as an indication of treatment failure), all-cause hospitalization, or death.

Overall, treatment with benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants was associated with increased risk of psychiatric rehospitalization, with hazard ratios of 1.38, 1.19, and 1.18, respectively, and with increased risk of all-cause hospitalization or death (HR 1.37, HR 1.21, HR 1.17, respectively).

By contrast, treatment with ADHD medication was associated with decreased risk of psychiatric hospitalization (HR = 0.88), as well as a decreased risk of all-cause hospitalization or death (HR = 0.86).

Specifically, clozapine, lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, and methylphenidate were associated with decreased risk of psychiatric rehospitalization, with hazard ratios of 0.54, 0.79, 0.84, and 0.90, respectively.

Treatment with mood stabilizers had no significant impact on outcomes.

BPD patients treated with ADHD medications also may exhibit ADHD symptoms, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, “Although BPD and ADHD partially overlap in symptoms such as impulsivity and emotion dysregulation, previous efforts to investigate the efficacy of ADHD medication treatment in BPD are scarce,” and randomized, controlled trials are needed to determine whether these medications should be given to BPD patients without comorbid ADHD symptoms, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of clinical parameters on symptom severity, quality of life, and level of function, and premature prescribing of medication (protopathic bias) may have affected the results, the researchers noted.

The results were strengthened by the large sample size and long follow-up, which increases the generalizability to real-world patients, and suggest that many pharmacological treatments for BPD may not improve outcomes, the researchers said. However, “even in the presence of possible protopathic bias, treatment with lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, methylphenidate, and clozapine was associated with improved outcomes, encouraging further research on these treatments,” they said.

The study was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Academy of Finland. Dr. Lieslehto had no financial conflicts to disclose.